| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1979 SLG 151 1979 SLD 151 1979 PLD 131 |
Quetta High Court
Constitutional Petition No. 115 of 1977, decided on 24th September, 1978. Dates of hearing : 14th, 21st and 22nd March, 1978.
M.A. RASHID, ZAKAULLAH LODHI AND MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, JJ
Basharatullah for Petitioner. S. H. Jrlffri for
Respondent No. 1. Muhammad Yousuf, Asstt. A. G. (Baluchistan) for
Respondent No, 2.
Constitutional Petition No. 115 of 1977, decided on 24th September, 1978. Dates of hearing : 14th, 21st and 22nd March, 1978.
M.A. RASHID, ZAKAULLAH LODHI AND MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, JJ
Basharatullah for Petitioner. S. H. Jrlffri for
Respondent No. 1. Muhammad Yousuf, Asstt. A. G. (Baluchistan) for
Respondent No, 2.
MUNIR AHMED er
VS
UNIVERSITY OF BALUCHISTAN THROUGH THE CONTROLLER Op EXAMINATIONS, QUETTA AND ANOTHER --Respondents
Law:
Section:
Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 199 Educational institutions Recall of certificate Principle of locus poenitentiae Can be invoked only till a decisive stage not reached Order once acted upon, or a certain right accrued by virtue of an order, Court or authority issuing such order precluded from withdrawing it Petitioner granted certificate of Intermediate Examina¬tion in pre medical group and admitted to Medical College on strength of such certificate, petitioner in admission form for examination giving truthful account of his earlier successes and failures and practising no fraud upon University, right to pursue studies in such College (in absence of clean evidence of fraud), held,' acquired by petitioner and power to recall certificate at such stage not available to University--¬Per Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, J. (Contra) Result of University not so sanctified as not to be touched Person cannot be allowed to benefit from his own fraud and action for fraud could naturally be taken after same having come to knowledge of authority concerned--¬Petitioner having fraudulently improved his division in clear violation of University Rules, held, not entitled to equitable relief. [Educational institution]. Per Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, J. Indeed facts have evidently established that the petitioner had improved his division .in clear violation of the standing rules. Under such circumstances, the University was competent to cancel the result of the petitioner. There are express provisions in the rules for taking such action. In the case, Rahat Siddiqui v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another P L D 1975 Lah. 257. It has been observed that:--- "If a person is disqualified from passing a particular examination, the question of declaration of his result in that event, would not arise, and if the candidate can manoeuvre otherwise, such declaration of his result being void ab initio would be non existent in the eyes of law, and any proceeding to quash the same would be unnecessary and futile. I am, therefore, of the opinion that even after the declaration of the result of the petitioner it was competent for the Board authorities to have initiated action…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492