TALIB HUSSAIN vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, MULTAN Through Its Chairman

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed; against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioner's Civil Revision. A suit for declaration regarding the then allegedly bogus result card of his Matriculation Examination (1974) was decreed which was reversed on respondent's appeal. The petitioner's Revision having been dismissed by the High Court he has now sought leave to appeal.

2. The facts narrated in the petition for leave to appeal are that, the petitioner appeared in the Supplementary Matriculation Examination of 1974 and was delivered the result card on 31st December, 1974 showing that the (petitioner) succeeded in the same. On the basis of this he got his departmental promotion. However, lately he was asked to produce the formal certificate. The petitioner approached the respondent Board to supply him the certificate with reference to the result card. In reply he was told that in reality he had failed in the examination and that the card held by him, was bogus. Having felt aggrieved the petitioner brought the present suit for declaration that he had passed the examination. Therefore, a mandatory injunction was sought for a direction to the respondent Board "to issue him the formal certificate and also a prohibitory injunction to restrain it from declaring him as unsuccessful". The suit was resisted primarily on the ground that the result card Exh.P.1 was in conflict with the result-sheet Exh.D.l and thus was forged and bogus document.

3. The trial Court held the result card to be a genuine document and decreed the suit; but, the Appellate Court held it otherwise, reversed the findings of the trial Court and set aside the decree passed in petitioner's favour. The High Court also held that the result card Exh.P.1 was a bogus document.

4. Learned counsel has contended that the findings by the High Court are without evidence and therefore, not maintainable; that in any case even if the petitioner had failed in the examination it has not been even asserted from the respondent's side that he was responsible for the issuance of the bogus result card. In fact, according to the learned counsel, the evidence recorded by the trial Court showed that it was the office of the respondent which was responsible for the mistake, if any.

5. Therefore the petitioner should not have, been denied the relief granted by the trial Court.

6. After hearing the learned counsel we are satisfied that findings of fact rendered against the petitioner by the two higher Courts; namely, the Appellate Id the Revisional Court, do not suffer from any infirmity. Although it might be possible to say that there is no direct evidence to the effect that the petitioner himself prepared or got prepared the bogus result card in his favour without an intermediary link; yet, the fact remains that he tried to use it for his benefit, and further, that objectively also none else could have benefited from the forgery and fraud if the same would not have been detected. Hence, the petitioner cannot be absolved of his responsibility on the basis of the aforenoted argument, advanced by his learned counsel.

7. With these remarks there is no justification for setting aside the findings of fact which are otherwise unexceptionable.

8. The technical argument raised by the learned counsel is also without force. As already held even if it be accepted that the petitioner was not directly linked with the preparation of the fraudulent and bogus result card the very fact that he tried to use it for his benefit would deprive him of any discretionary relief by grant of leave to appeal. The same, therefore, is refused. As result, this petition is dismissed.