Brief facts of the case are that in January 2007, the petitioner was enrolled as a regular student of M.Ed class (session 2007-08) by the University of Education (Faisalabad campus) against Roll No.1.
She took up her M.Ed studies and appeared in Comprehensive Annual Examination held in February 2008 under Roll No.369. Result was announced in October 2008 but the petitioner could not qualify, then she appeared in 1st Resit Spring Examination 2007-08 under Roll No.1153 and also submitted requisite thesis in the office of Supervisor, University of Education which was sent, through Principal, to the External Examiner on 8.12.08 for necessary evaluation. After completion of necessary formalities. Thesis was approved by Thesis Viva Committee. On 17-1-09, the petitioner appeared before Viva Committee and obtained pass marks. Result of 1st Resit Spring Examination 2008 was announced in April 2009 and petitioner qualified the examination. She contacted the office of University of Education (Faisalabad campus) in the 1st week of May 2009 to receive her M.Ed result card / degree but the office staff informed her that her thesis was lost, therefore, it was not possible for them to issue any result card / degree without thesis marks. When respondent were approached for redressal of petitioner' grievance, they asked her to again appear before Viva Committee and submit her new thesis but the petitioner refused to follow their advice stating that she had already gone through necessary proces, therefore, the University was bound to issue her result card / degree. As the respondent refused to issue requisite result card / degree, therefore, the petitioner could not get any job as advertised by the District Government and Punjab Public Service Commission during the period from May to September 2009 for want of any result card etc. The petitioner demanded from respondent to redress her grievance but they did not, hence this petition with the prayer to direct respondent to issue result card / degree and also pay compensation / damages of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of physical / mental torture and financial / career loss as well as legal expenses of Rs.12,000/-.
2. Respondent contested the petition by filing their written list of University Marks E to H and Thesis Book Mark 'I'. In rebuttal, respondent Principal, Tauqeer Yasmin appeared as DW/1 and also placed on record documentary evidence comprising her affidavit Ex.D2, Conduct of Viva Voce Ex.D3, Punjab Gazette Ex.D4, Report of University of Education Ex.D5, Controller's approval dated 27-3-08 Ex.D6 and University of Education students list Ex.D6/1. Ghohar Abdul Ghaffar Assistant Professor, Rab Nawaz Khan Niazi ex-Principal and Haroon Rasool, Deputy Director Allama Iqbal Open University also appeared as court witnesses. Respondent produced original proforma Ex.Cw3/3, bearing signature of Chairman Thesis Committee and date / time for viva voce (27.1.09 at 1:15 pm) the Chairman Thesis Committee Cw3 also ratified his signature on document; he contended that Ex.Cw3/5 are forged documents and denied marks in as awarded by the External Examiner on 21-1-
09. Respondent, through her applications u/s 35 of PCPA 5005 and Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC alleged that Ex.Cw3/5 were forged documents while the petitioner depended on such documents. As already stated when in May 2009 the petitioner requested respondent for the first time to issue her pass result card, they told that petitioner's thesis file was lost, therefore, she should prepare new thesis file and again appear for viva voce on 28.8.09. Respondent's former Principal also wrote in his hand on petitioner's application that her thesis file was missing from their office. At the time of statement of CW, respondent produced a few original proforma of thesis file (Ex.CW3/2 to 3/5) - such acts of respondent depict their malafides as they prepared two files - one original Mark 'B' and Ex.CW3/1, Ex.CW3/2 and Ex.CW3/4 and the other file Ex.CW3/3 and Ex.CW3/5, forged in May 2009 but credibility of these documents appear doubtful. The petitioner also moved an application u/s 30(3) ibid for production of a few original documents from respondent's office (Mark 'B', Ex.CW3/4 and Mark 'C') and record of hard copy of thesis which the petitioner submitted after viva voce. In their reply to this application, the respondent stated that document Mark 'B' is not available in their office record. While document Mark 'C' is available in respondent's record, however, there is no record available regarding hard copy of thesis but at the time of cross-examination, DW3 stated that she has no knowledge whether hard copies are available in their office record at Faisalabad. In short, such discrepancy in the statement of respondent's witnesses would show that the respondent acted with malafides.
3. At the end of academic year, the University of Education conducted requisite examination which the petitioner allegedly passed, thus she became entitled for grant of degree as deposed by respondent (DW1). Result cards are issued by the constituent college of University of Education carrying marks a student obtains in summative examination in each academic year whereas the University only certifies the result card followed by formal degree bearing name, course and session of student. The University of Education (Faisalabad Campus) is constituent college of University while the petitioner is student of M.Ed (session 2007-08) who qualified the examination - 1st Resit Spring Examination held in November 2008 under Roll No.1153 : result was declared vide UQE No.358 dated 2.4.09 (Mark 'E') showing the petitioner to have passed examination but the respondent denied that she did not qualify the 1st Resit Spring Examination 2008. Respondent / DW-1 first denied that the petitioner qualified examination but then admitted that she had qualified which shows respondent's malafide.
4. To qualify for award of M.Ed degree, second pre-requisite is submission of thesis which is a compulsory exercise. It would appear from record that petitioner fulfilled all the requirement of thesis u/s 11 of Assessm ent and Examination Regulation 2003 of University of Education. As per University record Faisalabad Campus ( thesis file - Mark 'B', Ex.CW3/1, Ex.CW3/3 to Ex.CW3/5) as well as statement of CW1 to CW4 the petitioner fulfilled requirement of thesis. As per thesis file and instructions of petitioner's thesis Supervisor / Chairman Thesis Committee the petitioner followed respondent's instructions till date of viva voce (17.1.09) she appeared before Viva Committee as per Supervisor / Chairman Committee and on the date of viva voce test, the Supervisor / Chairman conducted viva voce and Mr. Ghohar Abdul Ghaffar, senior staff member conducted viva with the permission of Supervisor / Chairman of Thesis Committee. The petitioner gave viva voce whereafter the External Examiner, Mr. Haroon Rasool, duly singed the certificate as admitted in his statement. CW4 desposed that he evaluated petitioner's thesis and it is a common rule that Approval Certificate and thesis are signed after viva voce test as, in case a student fails to pass or does not take viva test, it would not be possible for the University to issue him / her certificate / degree. The respondent also ratified during cross-examination as DW1 that the format of Approval Certificate as in Mark 'I' was approved by the University "this dissertation submitted by Samina Hameed is accepted by the postgraduate Department of University of Education (Faisalabad Campus) as pre- requisite for the award of M.Ed (Secondary) degree" and Thesis Committee including Supervisor, Member (External Examiner) and Chairman all duly signed this approval certificate.
5. The petitioner has shown that she fulfilled all the requirements of thesis as per section 11 of Assessm ent and Examination Regulation 2003. She also fulfilled necessary requirements of viva voce committee which duly signed the approval certificate. Petitioner also complied requirements of sections 11.3 as well as section 11.4. The Vice Chancellor / Supervisor External Examiner too proved her topic and sent Thesis files of concerned students as per proforma (Ex.CW3/4) prescribed by the University of Education of Lahore, therefore, the Supervisor / Chairman prepared proforma of thesis, after due approval, and gave topic to the petitioner. Thesis file i.e. Mark 'B' Ex.CW3/1 to Ex.CW3/5 and thesis Mark 'I' would show that topic was approved as per rules. Respondent also did not raise any objection on the topic in their reply to the petitin.. The petitioner submitted four hard bound of her thesis (green cover) as Mark 'I' to the office of Chairman Thesis Committee after viva voce and in February 2009, she obtained her thesis copy Mark 'I' duly signed by the Thesis Committee. Petitioner also submitted copy of thesis to the Principal / Chairman of Thesis Committee who forwarded the same to the External Examiner on 8-12-08 and signed thesis file proforma receipt Mark 'B' and External Examiner returned the thesis within prescribed time alongwith his report Ex.CW3/1. The Principal / Chairman of Thesis Committee fixed date for viva as 17-1-09, soon after receipt of report of External Examiner Ex.CW3/1. Petitioner appeared before Thesis Committee under the advice of Chairman of Committee and also gave viva voce. Sending thesis result to the University of Education is not the concern of petitioner. In case there is any discrepancy / fault or lapse regarding dispatch of viva voce result that is the liability of Chairman of Thesis Committee / Head of Institution. As the petitioner took viva vice test as per instructions of Chairman of Thesis Committee / Supervisor , therefore, none else but the Chairman / Supervisor were responsible for any violation of procedure as the petitioner is not well aware about the Rules and Regulations. The Chairman / Supervisor called for Professor Ghohar Abdul Ghaffar who took viva voce of petitioner as External Examiner CW1. He also admitted in his letter Mark 'C' that the petitioner completed her research work satisfactorily and u/s 11.14 date of viva voce was fixed as required by section 11.15 the Verification Committee evaluated petitioner's thesis and also signed the Approval Certificate vide thesis at Mark 'I'.
FINDINS
6. There is no denying the fact that petitioner was enrolled as a regular student of M.Ed class by the principal office of respondent University. She passed the examination / viva voce test and also submitted requisite thesis, thus she became entitled for grant of requisite result card / certificate/degree as she fulfilled all the requirements and formalities for grant of requisite degree.
As regards status of documents at Ex.CW3 to Ex.CW5, the respondent objected that these were fabricated by petitioner with the connivance of their former Principal Rab Nawaz Khan Niazi but the respondent failed to substantiate the allegation of forgery onus to prove which lay on them, therefore, petitioner's claim gets support from the aforemention documents. So far as alleged lapses and shortcomings in respondent's documents / record are concerned, the same is not the fault of petitioner nor she can be penalized on this account. Petitioner's contention that result cards / degrees are issued by the Examination Department of University of Education Lahore and not the present respondent also carries no substance.
7. For what has been discussed above, petitioner's claim is made out, the same is, therefore, accepted directing respondent to issue the requisite result card / degree to the petitioner; they shall also pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation / damages for suffering physical discomfort and mental agony by the petitioner along with litigation expenses of Rs.12,000/-. As regards petitioner's remaining claim, the same is hereby dismissed. After completion, file be consigned to record room.