Shorn of unnecessary details the facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition which impugnes the validity of the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the University of the Punjab on the 29th November, 1981, cancelling the special Pathology pap:, of the Third Professional M.B.,B.S., examination in which the petitioner appeared on the 20th May, 1981, may be described in the following words. Miss Shahida Perveen, the petitioner, was a student of the Quaid- e-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur, when she applied to the University of the Punjab for taking examination in the special Pathology paper (in which she had failed earlier) of the third professional M. B., B. S., examination. In the admission form of the examination she entered in the column reserved for filling up examination centre the name of King Edward Medical College, Lahore. As she explained in her petition she wanted to take examination at Lahore because relations of. Her brother, who was an Assistant Professor in the Quaid-e-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur, with the members of the staff of that College concerned with examination were otherwise than cordial. She moved a separate application for change of examination centre to the King Edward Medical College, Lahore, and the same was recommended by the Principal of the Quaid-e-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur. In the roll number slip (Annexure A) sent by the University to the petitioner through the Principal of the Quaid-e-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur, the centre where she was to take examination was mentioned as King Edward Medical College, Lahore. This slip was received by the petitioner's brother from the office of the Principal of Bahawalpur College on the 16th May, 1981. The examination was to be held on the 25th May, 1981. The petitioner appeared in the examination at the King Medical College, Lahore, without any objection from the supervisory staff.
2. While the University authorities indicated the centre where the petitioner was to take examination in her roll number slip as the King Edward Medical College, Lahore, they took decision to reject her application for change of centre from Quaid-e-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur, to King Edward Medical College, Lahore. They sent intimation of the rejection of her application to the Principal of the Quaid-e-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur, who was supposed to have conveyed it to the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that she never received this intimation. On the other hand, the College authorities contend that the clerk of the College had given the intimation to the petitioner's brother though tire, petitioner does not admit this fact.
3. Feeling that the petitioner had flouted their order and acted in viola--tion thereof in taking examination at King Edward Medical College, Lahore, the University authorities issued the petitioner a charge-sheet accusing her of violating the provisions of regulations 13 and 18 of the University Calendar, Volume 1. On basis thereof the Disciplinary Committee of the University held her guilty of commission of violations of the aforementioned rules and disqualified her for two years from taking examination. The petitioner called in question the legality of the order by means of the present writ petition on the ground, inter alia, that she bad been condemned unheard. On an assurance given by the learned counsel for the University the petitioner made a representation to the Vice- Chancellor of the University who ordered reconsideration of her case by the Disciplinary Committee. This time the Disciplinary Committee imposed the penalty of cancellation of her paper.
4. The petitioner challenges the validity of the order of the Disciplinary Committee on various grounds pertinent among others being that the peti--tioner's action is not covered by regulations 13 and 18 for the alleged violation of which she has been penalised, that the decision of the University rejecting her application for change of centre never reached her and she appeared at King Edward Medical College, Lahore, on the basis of the direction contained in the roll number slip issued by the University from which she gathered that her application for change of centre must have been accepted especially when the Superintendent of Lahore Centre did not object to her appearance and that in the inquiry against her no evidence contrary to her stand was shown to her for she was simply orally heard.
5. The learned coups--_1 for the respondents conceded that regulation 18 was not attracted to the petitioner's case. He contended that her case was covered by regulation 13 which was quite comprehensive. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the contrary, drew attention to Regulations 10 to 12 preceding regulation 13 dealing with unfair means and maintained that all these regulations dealt with the subject of use of unfair means employed by the candidates while taking examination in order to copy or introduce some material in the answer-books so as to get undue advantage in securing marks and that they had no bearing on what the petitioner did even if the assertion of the University Authorities that she appeared at King Edward Medical College centre despite the fact that her application for taking examination had been rejected were to be accepted at face value. In order to appreciate their import it is advantageous to keep these regulations in view as reproduced hereunder :- "10. Every day before the Examination begins, the Superintendent or the Deputy Superintendent shall call upon all the candidates to search their pockets and part with and deliver to him all papers, books or notes, which they may have in their possession. No late-comer shall be admitted unless this warning has been repeated, to him at the gate.
The Superintendent or the Deputy Superintendent or both, as the case may be, shall forward to the Controller of Examinations every day a declaration signed by him or them and witnessed by all the Invigilators then on duty to the effect that he did, as a matter of fact, call upon the candidates to search their pockets and to surrender all papers, books or notes in their possession.
11. Any candidate who, after announcement made under Regulation 10, fails to part with or is found to have in his possession or accessible to him, papers, books or notes, relating to the subject of examination of that paper or detected in giving or receiving assistance, or using or attempting to use any other unfair means in connection with the examination, shall be expelled by the Superintendent of the Centre from the examination room.
12. If it is found that a candidate has access to, or is in possession of papers, books or notes, which might possibly be of assistance to him.
(a) but that his access to, or possession of such books, notes or papers was inadvertent, and was not male fide, his answer-book shall be cancelled, as a disciplinary measure without. Any implication of moral turpitude, and
(b) in other cases of possession be disqualified from passing any examina--tion that year.
13. Any candidate detected in giving or receiving assistance, or found guilty of copying from any paper, book or note, or allowing any other candidate to copy his answer-book, or using or attempting to use ` these or any other unfair means, shall be disqualified from passing any examination for a period not exceeding three years."
There is no allegation against the petitioner that she did anything to obtain better marks in the examination in any way by appearing at King Edward Medical College centre instead of taking examination at Quaid-e-Azam Medical College centre. The University authorities did not hear of anyone at Lahore helping her in any manner. A bare reading of these regulations makes it clear that they deal with conduct of the examinees in the examination hall in so far as it relates to recording answers to the questions. The peti--tioner's conduct of applying for change of centre and appearing at a particular centre without using or attempting to use any unfair mean cannot be covered by Regulation 13. Therefore, on this score alone the impugned order of the Disciplinary Committee should be struck down.
6. Even otherwise there was no evidence that the decision of the University rejecting the petitioner's application for change of centre was actually communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner's brother's signature appears at list of examinees of the Quaid-e-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur (copy Annexure D), in acknowledgment of receiving the petitioner's roll number slip. There is no written acknowledgment of his having received communication touching rejection of the petitioner's application, for change of centre. The roll number slip issued by the University directed the peti--tioner to take examination at the King Edward Medical College, Lahore. If the contention of the learned counsel for the University that it was due to lapse on the part of the University officials to score out the King Edward Medical College, Lahore centre, and to substitute therefore the name of Quaid-e-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur centre, were to be accepted the fault lies with the University authorities themselves and for that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. The Disciplinary Committee has acted on erroneous assumption of facts in an arbitrary fashion and has taken unreasonable view on the material which did not provide it with any terms for its decision for holding the petitioner guilty. Accordingly this petition is accepted with cost and the impugned order is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The University authorities will proceed to get the petitioner' answer-book relating to the examination in the subject of special Patholog that she took on the 20th May, 1980 examined and declare her result.