I may be excused for incorporating in this part some portions of over thirty-five-year-old report of the Eradication of Corruption Commission
Along with another judge, we attended an International Conference on Copyright and Patents in the neighboring country. One of the speakers there said that some doctors prescribe fake medicines. I asked why they should risk their careers. The reply was, for easy money, for more money, and for quick money.
Supreme Court Performs
Case No.3A Page 119 Report of the Commission on Eradication of Corruption submitted to the Government on 2nd October 1979.
A student obtained admission in a medical college by representing that he had obtained 643 marks. Initially, the marks so disclosed stood the test of verification also. Subsequent inquiries of the Board showed that he had obtained 533 marks. It quashed the result, disqualified the student from appearing at seven examinations of the Board. The Medical College expelled the student. On his writ petition, the Supreme Court maintained the decision of the Medical College. The Supreme Court then did the most unusual thing. It quashed the Boards decision on the supposed ground that “it could have been the result of a mistake”. On his representation to Government, the Principal of Medical College strongly opposed his readmission to Medical College. The Secretary of the Department wrote, “Supreme Court left the decision of his readmission at the discretion of college authorities and the student has already spent three precious years of his life in a medical institution, his case may be sympathetically considered by the Governor”. The Minister commented that the student was the son of a doctor and nephew of a War Hero. The Governor allowed him on the April 1973 to complete his course.
After doctrine of necessity, the Supreme Court has come out, and applied, a self-destructive doctrine of ‘possibility of a mistake’. The lawyers know the doctrine of beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, the preponderance of probability in civil cases and the doctrine of good faith, fairness, and justice in discretionary matters. This doctrine of the possibility of a mistake throws every judgment of the Supreme Court itself in jeopardy. While maintaining Boards decision how could a discretion be still left with anybody? A blunder unparalleled.
High Court Performs
Case No.1 Page 115 Report of the Commission on Eradication of Corruption submitted to the Government on 2nd October 1979
A student appeared at the Intermediate (supplementary) examination held in 1967 and secured 423 marks. He again appeared in 1968 and failed. A forged admission form with a forged enrollment number was substituted on the record of the Board and on its basis the student got a result card showing to have obtained 639 marks, which were the marks obtained by some other student. He got admission in the medical college. The Board quashed his result. In Medical college he was served with a notice when studying in the third professional. He challenged both the actions but the single judge dismissed it. So did the Division Bench of the High Court. While doing so the Division Bench made following observations in the judgment.
“By striking the name of the petitioner from the college rolls, no benefit will accrue to any person. It is common knowledge that each Medical College costs the Government itself Rupees 50,000. The Government has on the education of this boy also, during the last four years, incurred a considerable expenditure and after a year or so when he passes the M.B.B.S. examination he will be able to serve humanity and the amount which the Government has spent on the education of this candidate will also not go waste. However in saying so I am fully conscious of the fact the petitioner has obtained the admission to the college by employing and improper means, but I have made these observations only with a view to emphasizing on the college authorities that simply because the Board has taken the decision they are not necessarily to follow the course of expelling the petitioner from the college and the principal who has issued the notice to the petitioner, may in his discretion take his independent decision. Subject to the above remarks this petition is dismissed”
The Civil Court also performs
From the same case as above – Page 115 Report of the Commission on Eradication of Corruption submitted to the Government on 2nd October 1979
The student took the M.B.B.S. examination, but his result was withheld as his name was sought to be removed from the rolls. The student this time filed a civil suit. The Civil Court decreed the suit observing as follows:
“It is clear that under Article 42 of the prospectus of the college the defendant No.2 had no authority to strike out the name of the plaintiff because a period of one month from the date of admission had expired.” The Court then reproduced para 4 and 5 of the High Court judgment and concluded.
“I rely on this judgment and the main point which appeals to my mind is that the plaintiff has already appeared in the final examination paper of MBBS has passed all the papers but the result of one paper i.e. I.E.N.T. has been withheld by the university, this shows that his name is struck off from the college rolls at this stage no benefit will accrue to any person. The Government costs thousands of Rupees on the education of students of the professional classes and in the instant case the Government has also spent a considerable amount. If he is allowed to continue his study in the same college which is now limited to one paper he will be able to serve our poor nation and the amount which the Government has spent on his education will also be not wasted.
The provincial Government went in appeal which was dismissed mainly by reference to observation in the High Court judgment and to para 42 of the prospectus.
This is a unique case where Board has quashed the result yet the Courts without interfering with that decision give discretion and power to College and other authorities to keep him in college. Most Surprising.
The record showed that in 1973- 74 twenty-five cases of forged certificates were detected and were in the queue for a decision by authorities.
Others also perform
A student’s name was removed from the rolls of the Medical College on 29th October 1975 on the report of the Board that his certificate was forged. On 9th March 1976, the Chief Minister rejected the application of the student for readmission to the college. On 12th December 1976, the Prime Minister visited the District Headquarter where the Medical College is located. The Pakistan Student Federation pressed the demand for the restoration of the name of the candidate on the rolls of the college. The Prime Minister was pleased to accept the demand. The College implemented the direction.
Experiences of a Lifetime 