Petitioner, Movina Iftikhar, calls in question the action of the respondent, Punjab University, quashing the B.A. result of the petitioner and witholding her degree of B.A. & M.Sc. to be declared as illegal and without lawful authority.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner passed the following examination from the educational examinations from England (U.K.):-
(i) Certificate of secondary education issued by London Regional Examining Board.
(ii) Certificate of extended education.
(iii) General certificate of education issued by the associated examining board.
(iv) Certificate from Norwood School Crown Dale London. (University of London).
She was desirous to be admitted in the medical college for obtaining MBBS decree, therefore, moved to the inter Board Committee of Chairman, through its Secretary .(Respondent No, 3) who was competent authori issue equivalence certificate in Pakistan under the Federal Supervision Curricula Text Books and Maintenance of Standards of Education Act, 1976. On her application, the respondent vide letter dated 31.12.1980 required the petitioner to pass certificate of Urdu. A-Level and on fulfilling their requirement as such, the requisite equivalence certificate was issued by them vide Letter No, Y.2-106/80-IBCC dated 31.01.1981. Since the petitioner could not obtained the admission in the medical college as time had expired in process of obtaining Urdu A-Level certificate. She left with no option except to seek admission in the Government Degree College for Women, in B.A. classes and she appeared in the annual examination in 1982 under Roll. No, 16153 and was allowed Registration No, 80-gp-407 by the respondent University and thus passed the examination by securing 456 marks. Therefore, petitioner passed her M.Sc, examination but result was withheld by the Respondent No, 2, on the ground that the education certificate of the petitioner from abroad was not sufficient to recognize her education equal to F.Sc., and the subjects as passed by her abroad were short by one, viz Urdu A-Level. Petitioner with a view to fulfill the said requirement, -again studies for the said subject arid it was in 1984 that she secured the required certificate from University of London Thereafter, certificate was furnished to Respondents Nos, 1 & 2 upon which the University of Punjab (Respondent No, 1) having examined the same directed the Respondent No, 2 for the issuance of petitioner's result. Quite ironically, he instead of issuing the same, lie took a complete somersault into his earlier stance with a version that result card of the petitioner for B.A. 2nd Annual examination had been issued through an oversight and thus, he, required the petitioner-to return the same immediately. Thereafter, it was disclosed that the result of the petitioner for B.A. and M.Sc. classes have been quashed by the University.
3. In pursuance of the order of this Court, respondent, university has filed report and parawise comments. Preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the Constitutional petition has been raised by the respondent on the ground that the same suffers from "lashes" and that Calendar of University of the Punjab Volume-II empowers the Punjab University to quash the result of student if it is found that he/she was not eligible to appear in the examination.
4. On facts, it was admitted that she appeared in B.A. 2nd Annual Examination of 1982 under Roll No, 16153 as regular student from Government Degree College for Women. The result of the petitioner was declared and subsequently was quashed as she was not found eligible to appear in the examination. The eligibility of the petitioner was placed before the Equivalence Committee which is statutory body as defined under the Calendar of University of the Punjab Vol. I. The said committee decided to quash the result of the petitioner vide Paragraph 10 of the proceedings of the meeting of the Committee held on 4.8.1986.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that "no doubt the respondent University had power under rules to quash the result or to withdraw the degree of candidate, but that rule was subject to proviso attached to that rule according to which result of a candidate could be cancelled within three years from the date of declaration of the result of examination and since cancellation/quashment of the result of the petitioner was passed after more than 3 years from the declaration of the result of the petitioner. Thus the same was in clear violation of the rule of the University. Reliance has been placed on the case reported as Azad Jammu and Kashmir University and another versus Muhammad Malik and others (1998 CLC 783).
6. Learned counsel for the respondent University states that the result of the petitioner for B.A. examination was not announced and it was declared as latter on, therefore, petitioner cannot avail the benefit of proviso attached to the rules and the case of Azad Jammu and Kashmir University and another versus Muhammad Malik and others (1998 CLC 783) relied by the learned counsel for petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record with their assistance. Vide Letter No, 615/E dated 14.3.1985 the Assistant Controller (Examinations. I) informed the college authorities as follows:-- "I am to inform you that the pass; result card of Miss. Movina Iftikhar D/0 Iftikhar Muhammad Rolll No, 16153 of B.A. 2nd Annual Examination, 1982, a regular candidate of your College has been issued through an oversight by this office. You are, therefore requested to direct the candidate concerned to return her result card to this office immediately. Her result is later for want of decision. The result for the above examination will however, be declared when her case of eligibility is decided."
8. Rule 22 of the Calendar of the University of the Punjab Volume-II reads as follows: "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Regulations, the Syndicate shall have the power to quash the result or withdraw the Degree, Diploma or Certificate of a candidate after it has been declared or awarded, as the case may be".
No doubt under the above said rule of the Calendar of University of the Punjab had power to quash the result or withdraw the degree, diploma or certificate of a candidate after it has been delivered or awarded. It is also correct that this rule is subject to the proviso attached to that rule according to which result of the candidate could be cancelled within three years from the date of declaration of the result of the examination. Since the petitioner's result was declared as latter on and as per letter dated 14.3.1985 addressed to the Principal, Government Degree College for Women, Rawalpindi, the result of the petitioner was deferred for want of decision, therefore, under the proviso of the Rule 22 does not apply to the petitioner case as three years would have elapsed if the result would have been announced by the University. In case of Azad Jammu and Kashmir University and another versus Muhammad Malik and others (1998 CLC 783) referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner candidate appeared in B.Ed. Examination and were declared successful by the University and salary and other allowances of candidates were increased on basis of their newly acquired academic qualifications, but University after more than six years from issuance of the result, cancelled result of candidate on ground that they were not eligible to sit in B.Ed.
Examination due to lack of teaching experience. In that eventuality, it was observed that Syndicate no doubt had power under Rule 22 of Azad Jammu & Kashmir University Rules to quash result or to withdraw the degree of candidate, but that rule was subject to proviso attached to that rule according to which result of candidate could be cancelled within three years from the date of declaration of result of examination and therefore order canceling the result of candidate after more than six years from the declaration of the result of the candidate was held to be in clear violation of proviso to Rule 22 of Azad Jammu & Kashmir University Rules. It was held to be not sustainable. In the present case, petitioner was able to complete the degree of the M.Sc. on the basis of B.A. result which was declared latter on for want of decision; therefore, the petitioner cannot take the benefit of proviso to Rule 22. Moreover she could produce the evidence, which could prove that, she had passed an examination equivalent to intermediate examination of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, before the Equivalence Committee on whose recommendation the result was quashed.
10. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merits, therefore, is dismissed.
Parties to bear their own costs.