Muhammad Javaid Iqbal Versus Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education

Ch. Sultan Mahmood, J .--- Brief facts of the case are that present petitioner successfully passed his matriculation examination with Roll No.45965 in the year 1997 and he was issued certificate No.45965-SA-L97 by respondent-BISE Faisalabad. On a telephonic information respondent-BISE Faisalabad initiated an inquiry against the petitioner on the allegation that he has procured matriculation certificate by employing illegal means as someone else appeared in his stead. This culminated in quashing of the result of the petitioner/plaintiff and an FIR to that effect was also registered. However, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Appellate Committee against the order of quashment, which was also dismissed. The petitioner assailed quashing of his certificate and decision of the Appellate Committee through filing a suit for declaration against the respondents before the learned Trial Court, which was resisted by them while submitting contesting written statement. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues vide order dated 07.06.2010:-

I. Whether letter No.1327-SD dated 06.12.2008, 307 FSR-ii dated 11.2000,9-ES R-ii dated 20.2.2001, ACER 728 dated 11.09.2000 are against the law and facts, without notice, based mala fide, inoperative upon the rights of the plaintiff, liable to be declared null and void? OPP.

II. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get declare his certified issued vide registration No.45965-SA-L97, serial No.033547 as genuine and to use it? OPP.

III. Whether this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit in hand under sections 29 and 31 of Board Act? OPD.

IV. Whether plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD.

V. Whether the plaintiff's matriculation certificate has been declared nullified? OPD.

VI. Relief.

Petitioner in order to prove his stance himself appeared as P.W-1 and produced Shahzad son of Muhammad Aslam as P.W.2, Muhammad Iqbal son of Baqar as P.W-3 and tendered roll number slip Exh.P-1, identification sheet Exh.P-2, verification of result card Exh.P-3, transfer order Exh.P-4, transfer order Exh.P-5, letter of controller examination Exh.P-6, report Exh.P-7, report under section 173, Cr.P.C., Exh.P-8, report under section 173, Cr.P.C., Exh.P-9, restoration of secondary school certificate Exh.P-10, report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Exh.P-11, FIR No.147 Exh.P-12, FIR under sections 302/324, P.P.C, Exh.P-13, FIR No.24/2002 Exh.P-14, attested copy of Nakah Nama Exh.P-15, attested copy of petition for cancellation of bail Exh.P-16, transfer letter Exh.P-17, office order Exh.P-18, transfer order Exh.P-19, office order Exh.P-20, transfer order Exh.P-21, pedigree table Exh.P-22, notification dated 16.02.1999 Mark-A, attested copy of suit titled umer Draz v. Muhammad Aslam Exh.P-23, attested copy of written statement Exh.P-24, attested copy of application Exh.P-25, attested copy Exh.P-26, attested copy Exh.P-27, attested copy of inquiry Exh.P-28, attested copy of statement of witnesses Exh.P-29, letter No.304 dated 11.08.2000 Mar-B, letter dated 31.05.2000 Mark-C, order dated 21.09.2000 Mark-D, letter dated 20.02.2011 Mark E, letter dated 11.09.2000 Mark-F, attested copy of application form Exh.P-30 and closed oral as well as documentary evidence. On the contrary, Muhammad Akram son of Ali Muhammad D.W-1, Sultan Sakandar D.W-2, Muhammad Naseem D.W-3 and tendered copy of identity card of plaintiff Exh.D-1, application for Exh.D-2, roll number slip Exh.D-3, order of appointment of inquiry officer Exh.D-4, letter of complaint Exh.D-5, application to SHO Exh.D-6, copy of FIR Exh.D-7, copy of charge sheet Exh.D-8, copy of order dated 10.05.2000 Exh.D-9, copy of application Exh.D-10, copy of metric certificate Exh.D-10/1, postal receipt Exh.D-10/2, copy of order dated 23.05.2000 Exh.D-11, application by plaintiff Exh.D-12, metric certificate Exh.D-12/1, copy of letter dated 31.05.2013 Exh.D-13, application by plaintiff Exh.D-14, copy of postal envelope Exh.D-14/1, copy of order dated 06.06.2000 Exh.D-15, copy of order dated 07.06.2000 Exh.D-16, copy of application by plaintiff Exh.D-17, copy of postal envelope and receipt Exh.D-17/1, copy of letter of inquiry Exh.D-18, copy of order of inquiry Exh.D-19, copy of application Exh.D-20, copy of letter of inquiry dated 09.05.2000 Exh.D-21, copy of application by plaintiff Exh.D-22, copy of application by plaintiff Exh.D-23, copy of inquiry Exh.D-24, copy of application by plaintiff Exh.D-25, copy of appeal Exh.D-26, copy of bank fee challan Exh.D-26/1, copy of postal receipt Exh.D-26/2, copy of letter dated 10.07.2000 Exh.D-27, copy of letter by plaintiff to controller Exh.D-28, copy of letter dated 01.09.2000 Exh.D-29, copy of letter by plaintiff dated 21.09.2000 Exh.D-30, copy of order of appellate committee Exh.D-31, copy of order dated 20.09.2000 Exh.D-32 and closed oral as well as documentary evidence. Learned Trial Court after hearing final arguments vide judgment and decree dated 10.05.2014 dismissed the suit of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by the learned Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 13.05.2017 in the following manner:-

"------appeal in hand is hereby accepted and judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court is set aside, impugned letter given in the head note of the plaint of the suit are hereby declared, null and void, in-effective and in-operative upon the rights of the plaintiff because these letters are based on the proceedings of Disciplinary Committee dated 6.6.2000 Ex.P-15 dated 21.9.2000 Ex.P-31, which are against the law, so both these orders are also set aside and inquiry against the appellant is considered to be still pending. The respondents are directed to carry out the proceedings of the inquiry by the Disciplinary Committee strictly in accordance with law and to pass a speaking order."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds urged in the instant civil revision has argued that there was no reason that the matter would have been remanded to the Authority but the appeal should have been decided on its own merits as there is overwhelming evidence which has been ignored. Prays that by allowing civil revision in hand, impugned portion "inquiry against the appellant considered to be still pending. The respondents are directed to carry out the proceedings of the inquiry by the Disciplinary Committee strictly in accordance with law and to pass a speaking order" of the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.05.2017 passed by the learned Appellate Court may be set aside and suit of the petitioner may be decreed as prayed for.

3. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-Board has repelled the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner and avers that petitioner was provided sufficient opportunity but he did not elect to appear before the competent forum. Although the orders passed by the Disciplinary Committee and Appellate Committee were non speaking but now the proceedings have been remanded back to the lawful forum, which will be decided in accordance with law. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the civil revision in hand.

4. Heard. Record perused.

5. The relevant provision of law under which the impugned order was passed is Rule 18 of Chapter V of the Rules appearing in the Board's calendar, which is reproduced herein below for the ready reference:-

18. Chairman's power to quash result.

The Chairman shall have the power to quash the result of a candidate after it has been declared and cancel the certificate accordingly, if already result issued.

1) If he/she has been disqualified for using unfair means in the examination; or

2) If a mistake is found in his/her result; or

3) If it is found that he/she was not eligible to appear in the examination; or

4) For Fraud, Forgery and Impersonation that may be determined by the Chairman.

From the above quoted law, it is not disputed that petitioner's result was notified in 1997 but the above provision of law clearly stipulates that power to quash vests in the Chairman. I have gone through the record but there is no such order placed on the record by the res pondent-Board. Even the Exh-D-32 through which petitioner was eventually intimated about dismissal of his appeal has not been issued by the Chairman. It is also the case of the plaintiff that Exh.D16/1, which was issued by the Controller of the Exam, has not been issued by the Chairman. When a thing is to be done in a manner provided under law, the same should be done in that manner and not otherwise. Reliance in this regard is placed on Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Finance Division, Government of Pakistan and others v. Muhammad Anwar (2025 SCMR 153), Commissioner Inland Revenue, Large Taxpayers Office, Islamabad v. Pakistan Oil Fields Ltd. Rawalpindi and others (2024 SCMR 853) and Nadir Khan v. Qadir Hussain and others (2024 SCMR 770).

6. Apart from the above, D.W-2 Sultan Sikandar appearing as witness for respondent-Board during cross-examination has deposed as under:-

Muhammad Naseem Retired Assistant Controller appearing as D.W-3 during cross-examination has deposed that:-

This particular piece of evidence clearly reflects that respondent-Board has no case against the petitioner on merits. All the P.Ws. produced by the petitioner stood the acid test of cross-examination and remained unscathed. No contradictions are found in the testimony of P.Ws. rather they remain firm with regard to the stance of the petitioner. There was not a single suggestion put to the petitioner while appearing as P.W-1 in the cross-examination that he did not appear in the examination and he procured the result card by employing unfair means. On the other hand evidence led by the respondents is full of material discrepancies. D.Ws. during their cross-examination admitted the stance of the petitioner that he appeared in the examination and passed it and certificate was issued to him and they did not say that petitioner/plaintiff procured certificate by using unlawful means. Courts below while passing impugned judgments and decrees have ignored this piece of evidence and have committed non reading and mis reading of evidence and in such cases interreference is permitted.

7. Sufficient material is available on record to decide the matter on merits and the parties had already led evidence and the material facts had clearly emerged. In such like cases remand is not an option rather Court should have decided the case on merits. Even otherwise, remand cannot be ordered to improve the case of one party and parties cannot be relegated to square one, when the complete evidence of the parties is available, the appellate court should have decided the matter.

8. In view of the above, learned Appellate Court has erred in law as well as facts of the case while passing the impugned portion of judgment impugned herein, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. Thus, the revision petition in hand succeeds and the same is allowed, impugned portion of judgment and decree dated 13.05.2017 of the learned Appellate Court is set aside, consequent whereof the suit instituted by the petitioner stands decreed as prayed for. No order as to costs.

MQ/M-45/L Revision allowed.