' IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.---Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to respondents Nos.1 and 2 not to disturb the result already declared whereby she has been shown as 1st Class 1st by obtaining 750 marks in the subject of M.A. (Mass Communication) and a further declaration to the effect that she is entitled to receive benefits attached with a student, who secures the top position in the university examination.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was a student of M.A. (Mass Communication), University of the Punjab, Lahore. On 3-7-2001, she along with other students were to sit for their final examination in the paper of Public Relations. Some of the students boycotted the paper on the plea that the same was out of course. It is alleged that the male students boycotted the paper first and thereafter four female students left the center as well. The students who left the center under pressure included the petitioner. However, about fifteen female students remained in the center and took the examination. These included respondent No.4 Faeza Dawood.
3. Subsequently, the Board of Studies as well as the Disciplinary Committee, University of the Punjab met and decided that on compassionate grounds the students, who had boycotted, may not be subjected to disciplinary actions or cases for use of unfair means in the examination. It was decided to give them another opportunity to appear in the examination after about six months.
Before such exams were conducted, result of those students, who had not boycotted and appeared in the examination, was declared. Respondent No.4 Faeza Dawood secured 724 marks in the said examination. Since she stood at the top of the merit-list, she was held entitled to receive prize, medal etc. From the university. Lather, fresh examination was held on 9-4-2002. The result was declared on 21-6-2002 in which the petitioner secured 740 marks and stood first in the said examination.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that since she had secured higher marks than respondent No.4, she should have been declared first in the examination and should have been held entitled to receive prize, medal and scholarship as per Rules of Endowments, Calendar of the University of Punjab, Volume-1, 2002:
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that failure on the part of the respondent university to declare that the petitioner was entitled to be declared first and refusal on their part to find her entitled to receive prize, medals and other benefits, is unlawful and in violation of the rights of the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent university, on the other hand, submits that examination for Part-II, M.A. (Mass Communication) was held in July, 2001. The examination in the subject of Public Relations was held on 30-7-2001. The result was declared on 13-2-2002 in which respondent No.4 was declared 1st on account of having secured 724 marks. A certificate of merit was issued in her favour on 4-4-2002 and the degree in her favour was issued by the Controller (Examination) of the University of Punjab on 11-4-2002. It is further pointed out that the petitioner had boycotted the earlier paper. Even a case of use of unfair means was set up against her. However, the same was subsequently dropped by the competent authority on an unconditional apology being tendered.
Re-examination, which was allowed on compassionate ground as a special examination, was held on 9-4-2002. It was eight months after the earlier examination. The petitioner secured 740 marks.
However, she was not entitled to prize, medal and scholarship in terms of the Rules of Endowment mentioned in the Calendar of University of Punjab, Vol.-1, 2002. It is further submitted that any candidate, who passed any examination in parts is not entitled to receipt of merit, honours, distinction, prize or scholarship in terms of Chapter-5 of the University Calendar titled "General Regulations Relating to Candidates Passing University Examination In Parts". It is further argued that since the petitioner had appeared in a special examination, which was held eight months after the earlier examination, she was not entitled to take the benefit of the boycott that she undertook.
Further, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take the benefit of eight months of additional time which became available to her by reason of the boycott to further prepare for the paper of Mass Communication. It is, therefore, submitted that it would neither be just nor proper that the benefit, which was given to respondent No.4 bona fide and in compliance with the university rules and regulations, be taken away from her at this belated stage and awarded to the petitioner.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
8. The only question requiring determination by this Court is whether the petitioner can be declared as having secured first position and be granted the consequential benefit including prize and medals etc. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, my answer to the said question is in the negative for the following reasons:--
(i) It is common ground between the parties that the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 were students of the same class and were present in the. Examination hall on July, 2001 when the paper in the subject of Public Relations was to be held. On account of reasons which are not entirely clear from the record, the paper was partially boycotted. The petitioner chose to join the boycotters while respondent No.4 chose to remain in the examination hall and sat to take the examination.
Respondent No.4 sat for the examination and attempted the paper in July, 2001. Her entire result was declared on 13-2-2002. She secured 724 marks and was placed at the top of the merit-list. As a consequence, certificate of merit was issued in her favour by the university on 4-4-2002.
Simultaneously, a degree was issued in her favour by the Controller of Examination, University of Punjab on 11-4-2002, As such, all, steps went according to the rules and regulations of the university;
(ii) It is not denied that the petitioner was amongst those who had boycotted the paper in the subject of Public Relations. Whether she boycotted the paper on her own accord or not is out of the scope of these proceedings. The fact is that respondent No.4 sat for the paper and others boycotted and the petitioner was amongst the boycotters. It is also not denied that proceedings were initiated by university authorities including setting up a case of using unfair means. However, on an apology being tendered, a lenient view was taken, the proceedings were dropped and it was agreed that those who had boycotted examination would be allowed to sit in a special examination held on 9-4-2002. The petitioner sat for the said special examination held on 9-4- 2002, which was held 08 months after the earlier examination. When result was announced, she secured 740 marks, which was more than those secured by respondent No,4. However, there is a clear distinction between the petitioner and respondent No,4. While respondent No,4 sat for the original examination, the petitioner sat for the special examination, which was held 08 months later, on the basis of different question papeRs, Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the situation of the petitioner and respondent No,4 may not be equated nor can they be treated alike and on the same footing.
' In the aforenoted background, the Calendar of the University of Punjab, Volume-II, 1998, Part XIII, Chapter-V is instructive. It provides as follows:- "The General Regulation Relating To Candidates Passing A University Examination In Parts.
' Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Regulations, a candidate who passed any examination of this University in parts shall not be entitled to merit, honours, distinction, prize or scholarship."
' Likewise, Part-X of the Calendar of the University of the Punjab, Volume-1, 2002 provides as follows:- "(c) Prizes, medals and scholarships shall be awarded only to those candidates, who take the examination as a whole and at the time of annual examination. A candidate taking the whole examination at the time of the supplementary examination or partly at the annual and partly at the supplementary examination is not entitled to the award."
The rationale and intention of the aforenoted regulations is clear and obvious. In the first place, candidates who sit for one examination and do so together are entitled to be treated alike and the one who secures the highest marks as compared to others similarly placed students is entitled to recognition of his/her merit by being given prize, honours or scholarships. It is not denied that the petitioner did not pass the examination in one go. Notwithstanding the reason, it is clear from the record that she passed the subject of Public Relations in a subsequent special examination. She is, therefore, hit by the provisions of Chapter-5, Part-XIII, Calendar of the University of the Punjab, Volume-II 1998 and cannot claim the relief sought through this petition. Likewise, Rules of Endowments reproduced above also disentitle the petitioner from claiming the benefit of award or medal.
(iii) The learned counsel for the petitioner has half-heartedly attempted to argue that the result card of the petitioner indicates that even the special examination was treated as a part of the annual examination and was, therefore, liable to be considered as such for the purpose of award of distinctions and prize. I am afraid, the said argument has not impressed me. It is too technical an argument to be dealt with at this stage where the facts and circumstances and regulations are clear and unambiguous. Further, having admitted the fact that the petitioner did not pass the examination in one go, it does not lie with the petitioner to argue that since the result card did not indicate that she had passed the examination in parts, she was entitled to the benefit of medal and honours,
(iv) This question can also be looked at from a different angle. The idea is to place all students together on the starting line, let them compete in the same conditions which in this case would be the same examination consisting of the same questions which should be marked by the same set of examiners and the one who secures the highest marks should be declared the person entitled to medal or recognition of his/her merit. In this case, the petitioner and respondent No,4 were not similarly placed, they did not take the same examination, they did not answer the same questions and it is not clear whether the answer sheets were marked by the same examiners, Therefore, a person, who complied with all requirements, sat for the examination despite there being a boycott, displayed courage, was declared as the successful candidate and her result was announced much earlier, cannot be deprived of the honour on the basis that a person, who appeared in a subsequent examination, on the basis of different question papers and had the unfair advantage of eight months of additional time to prepare for one paper had secured marks higher. This would lead to injustice and also amount to discouraging a student, who had courage to comply with the rules and sit for an examination when others were ready and willing to boycott. Even otherwise, the petitioner had an undue advantage over respondent No,4 because she had eight additional months to prepare for the paper of Public Relations and by sitting in the examination eight months later, she could have mastered the subject more than the petitioner who sat for the examination eight months earlier. Therefore, they cannot be treated at par.
(v) Finally, the rules and regulations of the University are quite clear. They do not support the case of the petitioner. Further, the result of respondent No,4 was declared earlier and by the time result of the petitioner was declared, respondent No,4 had already been declared as the top student, had received her medal/recognition and degree had already been issued in her favour. There is no reason why the said benefits can be taken away from her at a belated stage on grounds which are even otherwise not legally sustainable.
9. For reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.