' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, C.J.---This appeal through leave of this Court is directed against the order dated 16-4-2001 delivered by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby the *fit petition filed by the appellant Muhammad Usman Qayyum voicing his grievances against the treatment accorded to him by the University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore hereinafter called the University, was dismissed.
2. The background and the circumstances of this case are startling in nature and require to be summarized in order to reach a just and fair conclusion. The appellant had a brilliant academic record. He has secured 742 marks out of 850 in the Matriculation Examination and thereafter he secured first position in his F.Sc. (Parts I and II) Examinations. He was admitted in B.Sc. (Civil Engineering) course of the University and in the 1st and 2nd years annual examinations he secured first positions. The trouble of the appellant started in his 3rd year at the University. According to him, some of the teachers and students, on account of certain hostilities, were desirous of ousting the appellant from the University as well as the 3rd year examination top position. The first step towards this object was arbitrary cut down of his 3rd year's sessional work marks and the variation therein "was self-speaking, particularly in view of his previous record of the 1st and 2nd annual examinations. The appellant alleged that he approached the teachers for the redress of his grievance and for a fair treatment with regard to sessional work marks as the appellant had been regularly submitting his sessional work to his teachers. He was informed that nothing could be done in the matter as his sessional work was not traceable and had been lost. It is alleged by the appellant that a certain group of students, at the behest of some teachers was working against him and thus on 6-2-2001 the appellant was kidnapped with a view to deter him from taking the 3rd year examination so that the appellant was deprived of reflecting his abilities in securing any position in the examination. An F.I.R. Was lodged in this behalf with Police Station Garden Town. The appellant informed the UniversityAuthorities about the circumstances of harassment and victimization, but to no avail.
3. The appellant thus in order to save his academic career instituted a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed and thus jurisdiction of this Court was invoked. During the pendency of this appeal, falling on a .Number of precedents in which the examination centers had been changed to other Universities the appellant applied for change of examination center from Lahore to some other University. This attempt was again tried to be thwarted by the interested quarters,and an unfair means case against the appellant in the paper of Fluid Mechanics-II was prepared. It is alleged that this was initiated by the respondent No,5 in collusion with his close relative, an external examiner, respondent No,6 at the Taxila University. The charge-sheet reads as under:-- "Your fluid Mechanic-II paper of third year Civil Engineering Annual Examination, 2001 held on 23-1- 2001 looks doubtful. You have used erazing fluid at many places, which is unusual."
4. It was submitted that the action was mala fide and even the University Authorities did not know the exact method and manner in which the allegation of unfair means was levelled. In the background of this hostile at most here this Court on 23-4-2001 while granting leave to appeal, also allowed interim relief in the following nature:-- "We direct that petitioner shall take his examination as a whole in the third year Civil Engineering Examination papers as and when to be conducted at Khuzdar University and his result on the basis of the examination papers set in routine at Khuzdar be conveyed to the Engineering University Lahore treating it as petitioner's annual result of third year (1998 session) which shall always be subject to the fate of this petition. The prayer of the petitioner regarding his Islamic Studies Paper and selection of Project is also allowed."
' The appellant thus took 3rd year annual examination theory papers except Islamiat at the Khuzdar University and it came to light that no provision for sessional work, practical and viva voce examination existed in the Khuzdar University syllabus for three out of eight subjects as they had been merged into corresponding theory papers work. Thus, in these three papers, sessional work, practical and viva voce marks of the appellant had to be awarded on the basis of theory papers marks in these subjects. With regard to five subjects the University disputed the sessional work marks thereof although the appellant had already submitted his sessional work. It may be stated here that these are the same sessional work in respect of which the marks of the appellant hadbeen arbitrarily reduced and the sessional work and the relevant documents and papers had been lost as reported by the teachers. While the appellant was taking the final year classes he suspected that he may not get a fair deal with regard to the sessional work including laboratory experiments. Before the commencement of the final examination, he thus moved Civil Miscellaneous Application No,3329 of 2001 and on 28-11-2001 in presence of the counsel for the University the prayer of the appellant, was allowed and it was ordered that the sessional work, practical and viva voce examination marks of both the 3rd year as well as final year shall be awarded to him on the basis of the corresponding marks in the theory papers. In the meanwhile the appellant received the result of the 3rd year examination conducted by the Khuzdar University wherein he obtained 90% marks in six papers. In the examination of three papers, which he took at Khuzdar, he was awarded zero in two papers and 14 marks in the third paper. Out of these three papers one was Fluid Mechanics-II, which the appellant had taken afresh at Khuzdar. The Chairman of the Civil Engineering Department of the University, as the external examiner, awarded zero to the appellant. The appellant in the meanwhile also took the 4th year final examination at Lahore under the strict surveillance of the University Authorities and, on the declaration of result he secured 72% marks, which were far below the expectation of the appellant.The appellant thus approached this Court and prayed for re-evaluation. The matter was heard at length and the University viewpoint was also taken into view and after thorough discussion it was ordered that the papers of the appellant be re-evaluated by three independent and impartial persons to be nominated by this Court. Eminent engineers were appointed to re-evaluate the papers and surprisingly on re-evaluation instead of zero in two papers the appellant was awarded 79 and 70 marks and in the third paper he was awarded 68 out of 80 marks. As a result of the re-evaluation the appellant secured first position in the 3rd year as well as final year examination by obtaining 1119 and 1113 marks respectively. Despite this position, the result of the appellant was not declared and the merit list was changed. The appellant again approached this Court and a direction was issued to A notify the appellant's 3rd year and, final year examinations result as also to issue him the requisite certificates. But we feel the University Authorities were reluctant on one pretext or the other to give the appellant his due. In the meanwhile, the Convocation of the University was announced but the appellant was not invited to attend the ceremony. On the Court's direction, Malik Muhammad Aslam, Registrar of the University entered appearance and informed that although the appellant was entitled to six medals and degree, yet the matter had been kept pending on account of the pendency of appeal in this Court. However, this Court directed that the medals and the degree shall be awarded to, the appellant during the Convocation. Despite this order, the Controller of Examinations instead f-f delivering these medals and degree in a ceremonial manner, attempted to humiliate the appellant and the medals and the degree were given to the appellant in a sealed packet.
5. On 7-5-2003 the appeal came up for hearing and the matter was argued at length. The hostile attitude of the University Authorities was highlighted and re-evaluation of the marks was also brought into our notice. Mr. S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of the University and he candidly stated at the bar that the University would not reopen the matter but the appellant was, required to take practicals and viva voce examination of the final year so that his capability could be assessed. It was further argued before us that after taking of the practicals and viva voce examination the appellant would be declared to have passed the examination. On behalf of the appellant it was argued that in fact he had done his final year sessional work in all the eight subjects including the laboratory work, which is confined only to four subjects. It was further contended on behalf of the appellant that during the final examination the appellant had attended survey camp for 15 days at Abbottabad and submitted his final year project, the major component of the final year sessional work carrying 120 marks out of which he had secured 117 marks. The case was heard on various dates and it was vehemently argued that the University Authorities would not give fair deal to the appellant as it was manifest from the previous record of the case. On 20-5- 2003 Mr. S.M. Zafar did not turn up and the following order was passed by this Court:-- "We waited for Mr. S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for many a time, and even today, he has not turned up. In any case, the external examiner has to be appointed from amongst the persons who is not a member of the faculty. To resolve the issue without disturbing appellant's already declared results, there is no other option but to appoint an external examiner/assessor, who after conducting appellant's interview, would assess his overall capability regarding his technical know-how in respect of his final year sessional work, practical and viva voce. In this connection, Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik, Senior Advocate Supreme Court has submitted a list of five persons. We have seen the particulars of these Engineers and in our view Ch. Sardar Muhammad, M.Sc. Engineer, Ex-Chief Engineer Punjab, C&W Department, resident of 254-A, New Muslim Town, Lahore, would be the best person. In this view of the Matter, we request him to assess petitioner's overall capability towards sessional work, practical and viva voce of all the final year subjects and submit general assessm ent report to the Registrar of this Court within one week."
6. Before proceeding further, we must observe that on account of the hostile attitude and the mala fides which came to light in consequence of the re-evaluation of the papers of the appellant, we had passed the order for re-evaluation as well as for appointment of Ch. Sardar Muhammad, ex- Chief Engineer for taking practical and viva voce examination. We have received the report of Ch. Sardar Muhammad, which is reproduced hereunder:-- "I examined Mr. Muhammad Usman Qayyum. To ascertain/assess his ability/technical know-how in respect of all the final year subjects' sessional work, practical and viva voce, first of all the syllabus was reviewed and salient features of the final year course were selected, a brief of which is outlined as annexure "A".
' In this context, I put Mr. Usman Qayyum various questions out Of the scope/syllabus of the sessional work etc. He was examined by interrogating and cross-questioning regarding objects of various experiments, the procedure and various steps involved therein and the apparatus used in different laboratory experiments. He, besides verbal viva voce from the syllabus, was also taken to different laboratories/institutions like Road Research and Material Testing Institute Lahore, Building Research Station, Lahore, PCSIR Ferozepur Road, Lahore to assess his knowledge about relevant equipments, its usage and to see whether he has performed experiments in the laboratories. He was also taken to a few under construction field sites/projects so as to assess his technical know- how/practical approach to various tests/experiments related to field. He also performed certain tests in my presence. Various steps involved in the design of certain structures, projects and schemes covering the final year syllabus were also questioned to ascertain whether he has the capability to carry out such different assignments in terms of sessional work etc. My observation is that his performance in all respects mentioned above was the best and that he possessed sound practical knowledge.
' In short I have examined him from all the angles and found his over all ,capability towards his technical know-how regarding all his final year subjects' sessional,work, practical and viva voce examination excellent, which in mathematical terms is fairly compatible with rather better than the marks obtained by him in the relevant theory papers."
7. We may observe that although this Court had passed an order D that as far as sessional work assignments etc. Were concerned, the same should be re-evaluated on the basis of the marks obtained by the appellant in theory papers, but despite that we honoured the wish of the University and keeping in view the peculiar background and circumstances of this case, we appointed Ch. Sardar Muhammad, an eminent engineer to assess the capability of the appellant. In this view of the matter and in the interest of justice, we will issue the following directions in this case:--
(i) To notify the result of the appellant and award him all his due including medals, certificates, etc. Without recording any remarks thereon;
(ii) The Pakistan Engineering Council is requested to register the appellant as an engineer;
(iii) The appellant had also appeared before the Punjab Public Service Commission for being selected for a suitable job. The Commission is requested not to reject his application on account of non-availability of certain documents.
' The appeal is allowed in the terms stated above leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Criminal Original Petitions Nos.26, 51 and 72 of 2002 and 17 of 2003 are disposed of accordingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.