BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION Versus YASIR ARAFAT
1. IFTIKHAR MUAHMAMD CHAUDHRY, J.-- -This petition has been filed for leave to appeal against judgment of High Court of Balochistan Quetta, dated 3rd June, 2002 whereby Constitutional Petition No. 27 of 2002 filed by respondents has been allowed.
2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that respondents initially appeared in F.Sc. Examination in the year 1999 from Chaman under different Roll numbers but failed to qualify examination, as such they got cancelled their result and on getting changed the centre of examination they appeared from Pishin but without any success. Again the respondents succeeded in getting their result cancelled for the Examination 2000 and opted to appear in Bi-Annual Examination, 2000 from Mastung Centre from where they succeeded in qualifying the examination. It is important to note that when all the three respondents appeared from Chaman and Pishin Centres they could not give remarkable progress inasmuch as in the second attempt when they appeared from Pishin most of them either remained absent or dropped the papers. The petitioners have placed on record comparative result sheets of all the three respondents which are somehow indentical with each other, therefore, comparative result of one of the respondent i.e. Yasir Arafat is reproduced hereinbelow:--
COMPARATIVE RESULT SHEET
2. OF F.Sc. ANNUAL AND BI-ANNUAL EXAMINATION 1999/2000
3. MR. YASIR ARAFAT S/O MUHAMMAD SALIM
4. Urdu
5. English
6. Physics
7. Chem
8. Bio
9. P/St
10. I/ED.
EXAM
11. Roll No.
12. A
13. B
14. A
15. B
16. A
17. B
18. A
19. B
20. A
21. B
22. -
23. -
24. Annual 1999
25. 20026
26. 42
27. -
28. 38
29. -
30. 29/10 th
31. -
32. 35/04
33. -
34. 23
35. -
36. -
37. -
38. Annual 2000
39. 25945 dropped
40. Dropped
41. 36
42. Dropped
43. 25
44. Ropped
45. Dropped
46. Dropped dropped
47. Dropped
48. Dropped
49. Dropped
50. Bl-Annual 2000
51. 20920
52. 65
53. 73
54. 51
55. 52
56. 56
57. 51
58. 51
59. 61
60. 56
61. 62
62. 34
63. 30
64. Dated ______________ Controller of Exams
65. BISE, Quetta
66. It may be noted that comparative results of respondents Shah Faisal and Miss Yasmeen Khan are available on record.
67. It so happened that when respondents got favourable result from Mastung Centre the Controller of Examinations on examining their result observed that the result has been procured by them by adopting illegal means. As such in order to ascertain correct facts show-cause notices were issued to them on 29th January, 2001 wherein they were called upon to explain as to why their result should not be cancelled for the following reasons:--
68. The respondents submitted identical replies to the show-cause notices raising identical pleas. However, the Controller of Examination having been not satisfied from the explanations furnished by respondents cancelled their results of F.Sc. vide order, dated 12th March, 2001. Against this order respondents preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority but without any success as their appeals were dismissed on 12th April, 2001. They approached the Review Committee but their petitions were also rejected by means of order dated 19-5-2001.
3. The respondents challenged all the three orders by filing Constitutional petition before High Court of Balochistan which was partially accepted holding that by appearing from the District other than their home District no illegality has been committed by them but in respect of misconduct and adopting unfair means for getting favourable result the case was remanded to Review Committee for further probe vide judgment dated 6th December, 2001. Relevant para. therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:--
69. "7. As far as the second portion of the allegation is concerned, it is alleged that the ,petitioner had used extra sheets and the same were not signed and endorsed by the Superintendent of Examinations which amounts to misconduct and unfair means. Since the petitioners in their reply have rebutted the said allegations but order passed by the official respondents did not indicate as to how the extra sheets were used by the petitioners and whether the non signing of the extra sheets was due to the negligence of the authorities conducting the examination or were due to the unfair means adopted by the petitioners. No positive findings have been given by the Board. Thus the case of the petitioners is remanded to the Board to look into the matter and after hearing the parties the said question be determined. As already much time has lapsed, therefore, authorities to dispose of the matter within two weeks from the receipt of this order."
4. On remand the Review Committee consisting of Senior Educationists recorded following findings against the respondents:--
70. "Meeting of the Review Committee held on 7-1-2002:
71. English Papers A and B:--Roll No. 20923, 22618, 20921 and 20920, Bi-Annual Examination, 2000. As per findings of the subject expert the contents and the material used in the answer books are word for word the same.
72. Physics Papers A and B:--As per opinion of the subject expert the material and contents word for word are the same in all the answer books.
73. Biology Papers A and B:--As per opinion of the subject expert the material and contents word for wood are the same in all the answer books. Spelling of word 'Pyruvic acid' are written wrong by all the candidates as ' Pyturic acid'.
74. Chemistry Papers A and B:--As per opinion of the subject expert all the material and contents are the ditto copy of one and other. Moreover the source of material is the same. It is impossible that all the candidates may have ditto answers without use of malpractices.
75. Urdu Papers A and B:--As per opinion of the subject specialist the contents and material used by the candidates are mostly the same.
76. Islamiat Education:--As per report of subject specialist the material and contents used are similar word for word. Candidates have to answer in their own words.
77. Pakistan Studies. As per opinion of the subject specialist the material and contents used is mostly similar.
78. From the findings of the above it is crystal clear that it is humanly impossible to write ditto answer by various candidates using the same sentences, contents and material word for word. Two answers word for word written word by any two candidates separately cannot be the same. It is but natural that there will be some difference/variation in sentences, grammar and words."
79. It may be noted that in respect of using continuation/extra sheets without signatures of the examiner it was observed as follows:--
80. "1 ..
2. ..................
3. ............ ................................
4. ............ ............ ............ ............
81. 5 ............ ................................
6. Continuation Sheets used without signatures also show that some of the supervisory staff was involved in providing them without signatures of the proper person and one of the candidates did not sign attendance sheets which is mandatory.
7. The use of the extra sheets without the signature come to light only when the examiners while, making the papers pointed out that unfair means have been used by the candidates."
6. As a consequence of above facts once again results of respondents were cancelled, therefore, they preferred another Constitutional Petition No.27 of 2002 before the High Court of Balochistan which has been disposed by means of impugned judgment whereby orders operating against respondents were set aside and the Board Authorities were directed to announce the result of respondents. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended:--
(1) The Controller of Examination, Appellate Authority and Review Committee on having taken into consideration the answer sheets of the respondents alongwith continuation/extra sheets and the material available on record formed positive opinion that the respondents have succeeded in getting favourable result by adopting unfair means, therefore, in view of such findings of fact learned High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere in the lawful orders passed by the Authorities of the Board in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Reference in this behalf may be made to the case of Dilwar Jan v. Gul Rehman and 5 others (PLD 2001 SC 149).
(2) Learned Judges in Chambers of High Court instead of looking into the conduct of the respondents who have invoked equitable jurisdiction of the High Court for perpetuating wrongs committed by them has illegally passed impugned, order contrary to record holding that the Board Authorities are responsible for doing illegal acts. According to learned counsel such findings are not sustainable because simultaneously action against responsible officers has also been taken. Reliance was placed by him on Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali etc. v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1973 SC 236).
(3) The comparative results of the respondents if are read with the findings recorded by Review Committee no other conclusion can be drawn except that not only unfair means have been used by the respondents to manoeuvre result in their favour but surprisingly have obtained almost equal numbers in all subjects, therefore, according to him it is a clear case of unfair means. As such the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
8. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner at length and having gone through the record carefully as well as impugned judgment inter alia to examine the contentions of the learned counsel leave to appeal is granted.
82. C.M.A. No.33-O/2002:
83. Pending decision of appeal arising out of this petition operation of the impugned judgment is suspended. However, office may fix this case within a period of three months preferably subject to soliciting necessary approval from Hon'ble Chief Justice because question of educational career of respondents is involved in this case.
84. Q.M.H./M.A.K./B-78/S Leave granted.