' JAVED IQBAL, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15-5- 2001 passed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby Constitutional petition preferred on behalf of petitioners has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case as enumerated in the judgment impugned are to the effect that the petitioners moved an application under Article 204 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan "seeking action against 10 members of the Syndicate of the respondent No,1 University. By way of brief background, it may be observed that the petitioners had appeared in the B.E. Final Examination in 1996. Initially they were declared having passed such examination, but subsequently show-cause notices were served upon them by the Vice-Chancellor (alleged condemner No,1), requiring them to show why their results should not be cancelled on account of irregularities committed in the examination. Eventually their results were cancelled and upon their having approached this Court by way of C.P. No,D-1493 of 1997 a consent order was passed requiring that the controversy be resolved at the level of Syndicate of the respondent No,?. The Syndicate, in its meeting dated 3-6-1998, by majority votes passed the following resolution:-- "Resolved that since irregularities have been committed by the University Administration the examination results/degrees be restored with back effect."
(ii) Subsequently, the Vice-Chancellor sought a review of this resolution, but it was reaffirmed in a subsequent meeting of the Syndicate. Nevertheless notices were issued to the petitioners requiring them to appear in special examination to be held on 14-1-1999 in the subject theory of structure.
The petitioners impugned the said notices before this Court through C.P. No,D-42 of 1999 and this Court vide judgment dated 22-2-2000 held that the Vice-Chancellor could not direct holding of a fresh examination in supersession of a decision to the contrary taken by the Syndicate. It was further ordered that the Syndicate resolution dated 3-6-1998 reaffirmed on 19-12-1998 be implemented. After the pronouncement of the above judgment subsequent meeting of the Syndicate was held on 1st and 8th April, 2000, where the issue was reopened. This time the Syndicate whose composition has substantially been changed, examined the answer books and recorded a factual finding to the effect that the result had been fraudulently obtained. It was further resolved to prefer an appeal against the judgment of this Court. A petition for leave was accordingly preferred which came to be dismissed by order dated 19-12-2000, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court upheld the view taken by this Court to the effect that the Vice- Chancellor could not override the authority of the Syndicate was correct. It was also observed that once the validity of the earlier resolution had been upheld by this Court, a subsequent resolution nullifying the same should not have been passed.
(iii) After the pronouncement of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court the Vice- Chancellor decided to issue degrees to the petitioners but with specific endorsement to the following effect:- "Degree awarded in compliance with the Sindh High Court decision dated 22-2-2000 on C.P. D-42 of 1999."
' This decision was approved by the Syndicate in its meeting dated 23-1-2001. The petitioners challenged the said endorsement being contemptuous whereby an attempt was made to flout the orders of the Court which amounted to defiance to its authority by way of Constitutional petition which has been rejected, hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Mr. Abdul Rahim Kazi, learned Advocate Supreme Court, entered appearance on behalf of petitioners and urged emphatically that the legal and factual aspects of the controversy have not been appreciated in its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is contended with vehemence that the respondents have not complied the orders of the Court in letter and spirit but on the contrary committed grave contempt by making uncalled for endorsement on the degree which is in violation of the judgments of the learned High Court as well as this Court. It is argued that the learned High Court has erred while holding that the compliance of the orders have been made strictly by the respondents and it would hardly make any difference whether such orders were accepted mentally by the respondents or otherwise? It is argued that by such an endorsement, the professional career of the petitioners would be seriously jeopardized whereby an attempt has been made to deprive them of the benefit of the relief granted them by this Court. It is also mentioned that the provisions as contained in section 50(2) of the NED Act, 1977 have been misconstrued and misinterpreted causing serious prejudice against the petitioners. It is argued that the respondents have committed contempt by endorsing the degrees of the petitioners and approval of such mala fide and contemptuous action by Members of the Syndicates through resolution dated 23-1-2001 also amounts to contempt in view of the observation contained in the judgment, dated 19-12-2000 passed by this Court.
4. Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2 and controverted the view point as canvassed at bar by Mr. Abdul Rahim Kazi, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners and supported the judgment impugned for the reasons enumerated therein with further submission that no contempt whatsoever has been committed by the respondents and the order passed by the Court has been adhered to strictly and pursuant to said order degrees have been awarded to the petitioners. It is also contended that the endorsement made on the degrees is not harmful to the petitioners as in fact the degrees were granted pursuant to the orders of the Court and thus, the endorsement depicts a true picture of the facts and cannot be amounted to contempt of Court.
5. We have carefully examined the respective contentions as agitated on behalf of the parties in the light of relevant provisions of NED University Act, 1977 and perused the judgment passed by this Court on 19-12-2000 as well as judgment of the High Court passed on 22-2-2000. We have also perused the judgment impugned with care and caution. After having gone through the entire record, we are of the considered view that "endorsement on the degree" cannot be equated to that of "adverse remarks" rather it is a statement of fact having no detrimental effect on the career of the petitioners. No doubt a format of the degree has been prescribed but it could be amended under section 52 of the NED University Act, 1977. In fact the endorsement in question has not changed the format of the degree; rather it is statement of fact. In our view, unequivocal adherence has been shown to the orders of the Court pursuant whereof degrees have been awarded. We may mention here that "the power to commit for contempt is a power which has been vested in the superior Courts as an extraordinary power and has, therefore, to be exercised with great circumspection only where it is absolutely necessary in the public interest to do so".
Zahur Ilahi v. Mr. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto PLD 1975 SC 383.
6. In sequel to above mentioned discussion, no contempt whatsoever has been committed and the endorsement made on the degree would have no detrimental effect. In such view of the matter, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and leave refused.