FAIZA MALIK Versus CHAIRMAN B.I.S.E

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C J.---This appeal through leave of the Court is directed against the refusal by the High Court to grant relief to the appellant in its Constitutional (Writ) jurisdiction in a case where she was severely punished by the respondent authorities for having got her marks forged on one answer book, in which without the forged inflation of the marks she-would have failed.

2. As stated above she was severely punished because despite having allegedly passed in 7 other papers she was not given the benefit of that on account of the act aforementioned of having committed forgery with regard to the increase of marks in one paper. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the contention that the paper about which the complaint was made could have been cancelled and "since the petitioner had passed in seven subjects out of 8 she still passed the examination and having passed further F.A. examination of the Board, the impugned order is harsh and illegal".

3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant who reiterated the argument noted in the leave grant order. In reply the learned Deputy AttorneyGeneral relied on the case of Samar Parvaiz v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore (PLD 1971 Supreme Court 838). He contended that when a student secures advantage on the basis of misrepresented and, forged result, .the fact that after securing advantage in this manner the student' further gains some more advantage after a time since the original default is committed or the student has gone higher up in the laddcr of education and examinations, the authorities concerned can take proper action in accordance with law against the student on the basis of the original default or criminality. And further that lapse of time does not sanctify an action based on fraud and/or misrepresentation.

4. Thus, this question having already been concluded by a judgment of this Court her counsel could not advance the case of the appellant on the ground that she had, through passage of time, also passed the next FA. Examination. In this context we may further observe that the question of harshness would not at all arise. The judgment in the case of Samar Parvaiz fully applies in this case on this issue and no question of any leniency, even on account of the appellant being a female student arises. The contention thus stands repelled.

5. Next, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that she having passed in seven subjects had to be declared as passed in accordance with the normal rules even if she failed in the 8th. The same argument was raised in the High Court and the answer rendered was that it is not normal failure of a student in one out of several papers but the failure is on account of the discovery of fraud and forgery committed by the student. Therefore, .the punishment is not for mere failing in one paper but for the commission of . fraud and forgery. That was also the reason for the appellant having been dealt with very severely by the respondent authorities. In so far as legality measure of punishment is concerned we have no reason to differ with the High Court on this point either.

6. But the foregoing discussion on the two points mentioned in the leave grant order, which has resulted in above findings against the appellant would not close this judgment. We questioned the learned Deputy Attorney-General on the basis of another very vital point decided in the case of Samar Parvaiz cited by him as to why due benefit thereof should not be granted to the appellant. This aspect relates to the material against the appellant on the basis of which she has been condemned as a culprit in being a party to the forgery of her marks in one answer book, from 26 to 77, the total marks being 80.

7. The Registrar of this Court shall forward the case of Shaukat Ijaz Malik, the father of the appellant, for further action against him in accordance with law on the basis of the statement made by him in this Court and further material that may be collected, to the Central Ministry of Finance. There shall be no order as to costs.

8. M.B.A./F-237/S. ? Order accordingly.