BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION through Chairman, Lahore and 4 others vs FAKHARUZZAMAN
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, challenging the High Court judgment dated 12-5-1997 in Writ Petition No. 6331 of 1996, which set aside the respondent's disqualification for three terms in an unfair means case. The core legal question was whether the disqualification of a candidate for using unfair means could be sustained solely on the basis of a complaint without examining the complainant or seeking corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly distinguished the precedent cited by the petitioner and upheld the decision setting aside the disqualification, noting that the petitioner-authorities failed to examine the complainant or obtain corroboration from any other source. The key principle laid down is that disciplinary action and disqualification for unfair means in educational examinations cannot be sustained merely on an unexamined and uncorroborated complaint where the examination of the complainant is necessary under the circumstances.
- Whether the disqualification of a candidate for unfair means can be sustained solely on a complaint without examining the complainant?
- Is the examination of a complainant a prerequisite for exercising disciplinary jurisdiction in unfair means cases in all circumstances?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court judgment setting aside an educational disqualification based on uncorroborated allegations?
ORDER
' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Leave is claimed against the judgment, dated 12-5-1997 whereby Writ Petition No,6331 of 1996 was allowed and the disqualification of the respondent, Fakhar-uz-Zaman for three terms commencing supplementary examination 1994 and ending two subsequent examinations was set aside.
2. Sh. Maqbool Ahmad, learned counsel appearing in support of this petition on behalf of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, hereinafter referred to as the Board, has relied upon Ahmad and 3 others v. Vice-Chancellor, University of Engineering and Technology and another (PLD 1981 SC 464) to contend that it is not necessary in all cases that the examination of the complainant in an unfair means case is sine qua non for the exercise of parental jurisdiction of the authorities in the Education Department. According to him, the very fact that the complaint against the respondent was available on the record, it was sufficient to proceed with the disqualification for the unfair means case by the petitioner-authorities.
3. We have given our anxious thought to the case as unrevelled in the memo. Of this petition as also the available material. The learned Judge in Chambers in the High Court distinguished the facts of the case of Ahmad and 3 others (supra) and came to the conclusion that it was not denied by the petitioner-authorities that beyond lodging the complaint, even examination of the complainant was not gone ahead, muchless its corroboration sought from any other source. The plea being raised in support of this petition is sans substance and we have not been persuaded to interfere in the exercise of its jurisdiction by the High Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed and leave is refused.