1. ' HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, J.-- This judgment will dispose of Cons titutional Petitions Nos. 65, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 and 261 of 1985 which involve same questions of the facts and law.
2. ' These are petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitutional Order, 1981 whereby the petitioners want this Court to declare the orders dated 25-4-1983 as contained in letter dated 7-11- 1984 and enclosed with the letter of respondent No.1 dated 22-12-1984 of the respondents to be without lawful authority and no legal effect.
3. ' The facts leading up to these petitions in brief are that the petitioners were admitted as students of Dawood College of Engineering and Technology, Karachi. It is the case of the petitioners that they were issued the following call letters: {{TABLE}} S.No. Name Date of Date of appearing letter before Scrutiny Committee.
4. Qamber Ali Baloch 27-10-1982 27-10-1982 Mohd Ibrahim Mangi 23-10-1982 23-10-1982 Khalil Ahmed 29-10-1982 29-10-1982 Abid Baig 30-10-1982 30-10-1982 All Sher 23-10-1982 23-10-1982
(6) Aijaz Ahmed 25-10-1982 25-10-1982
(7) Ahsanullah Shaikh 23-10-1982 23-10-1982
(8) Shamlal Sharma 27-10-1982
(9) Mazhar All Kichi 28-10-1982 28-10-1982 {{TABLE}} ' It is the case of the petitioners that the list of admitted students DLET/CF/01/82-83, dated 14-10- 1982 was duly displayed and they were allotted Roll Nos.
5. 2121. 2139, 2101, 2035, 2110, 2117, 2052, 2063, 2036. It has been averred that the petitioners appeared regularly in first to fourth semester examinations but their results were never announced/ conveyed even though they were promoted and allowed to appear in next semester examination and attend all classes and practicals. The petitioners annexed photostat copies of Admit Cards to the petition No. 65 of 1985 as C/1 to C/9 and that of identity cards as D/1 to D/9.
6. ' It is the case of the petitioners that having got worried of the state of affairs and having received no response from the authorities, petitioner Qamber Ali Baloch moved the Principal of respondent No. 1 on 4-12-1984. The Principal of the respondent No.1 sought information from the head of the Department and other sections of the college. The Principal informed the petitioners vide letter, dated 22-12-1984 with the following remarks.
7. "All comments and letters are self-explanatory. This letter also enclosed the letter dated 7-11-1984 which also stated that besides admission of students having following seat numbers have been cancelled vide your Letter No. DECT/E-32, dated 25-4-1983 and as intimated by this Office Letter No. CE/695, dated 10-5-1983. 1981, 1983, 2035, 2036, 2052, 2062, 2111, 2117, 2121, 2123, 2139 and 2101, 2110, 2063.
8. ' These students may also not be allowed to appear at Examination."
9. ' It has been averred that the accounts department submitted its comments which read as under:- "As already this section had pointed out that matter vide this Office Letter No. DEST/AS/, dated 12- 1983, that the concerned students have not deposited the fees in accounts section but appeared in examination."
10. ' It is the case of the petitioners that at no time the decision to cancel the admission was conveyed to them, they were allowed to appear in examination continuously, attended all classes and practical's. It is their case that they appeared in the last examination for fourth semester which was held in December 1984. The petitioners are attending classes and practical's regularly for fifth semester and have only four semesters to qualify before the grant of their B.F. Degree. The petitioners have many time visited accounts department but the concerned section refused to take fee but they had been always willing and ready to pay fee when so ordered. There is no reason whatsoever will the respondent to cancel the admission of petitioners and prior to letter, dated 22-12-1984 of respondent No.1 the petitioners did not have any information/intimation of the exchange of letters between various functionaries and of the annexed letters. The petitioners, therefore, filed Constitutional petition challenging the aforesaid orders, comments were called from the respondent No.1.
11. ' The respondent No.1 submitted comments dated 23-2-1985 and stated therein that none of the petitioners were ever admitted in the college. It was submitted that the petitioners by fraudulent means managed to submit their examination forms for first semester examination 1982-83. The respondent immediately on the discovery of the above facts informed the Controller of Examination N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology for cancellation of examination of the petitioners and the Controller of the Examinations cancelled the examination of the petitioners. It is the case of the respondent No.1 that none of the petitioners submitted with these petitions any admission letter or the receipt of the fees paid in the college. The Annexures 'A/1' to 'A/9' are false and fabricated documents and these have never been issued to the petitioners as alleged. The identity. Cards are also false and fabricated and have never been issued by the College.
12. ' The respondent No.2 also filed counter-affidavit. The contents of para. 3 of the petition are denied.
13. However, it was submitted that the petitioners were allowed to and did appear at the first Semester Examination only and admit cards were issued to them on the basis of the record furnished by respondent No.1. The results were cancelled at the request of the respondent No.1 and the same was duly informed by letter dated 10-5-1983 i.e. 44 days prior to the announcement of the result on 23-6-1983. The admit cards (Annexures 'C/1' to 'C/9') were never issued by the respondent and they are forged/fabricated other than genuine or lawful and petitioners were never enrolled by the respondent No. 2.
14. ' The petitioners had taken a large number of grounds in the petitions but Mr. Abdul Wadood appearing on behalf of the petitioners in these petitions contended in the first place that the respondents did not cancel the admissions but only cancelled the results. In the second place, he contended that the impugned action of the respondent No.1 was held in violation of rules and principles of natural justice.
15. ' In support of the first contention Mr.Wadood drew our attention to letter dated November 7, 1984 of the Controller of Examination which reads as under:- "Besides the admission of students having following seat numbers have been cancelled vide yours Letter No. DECT.E-32, dated 25-4-1983 and as intimated by the Office Letter No. CE/695 dated 10-5- 1985".
16. ' It is also advantageous to reproduce the relevant portion of the letter dated 25-4-1983 of the respondent No.1 addressed to Controller of Examinations which reads as under:- {{TABLE}} S.No. Seat No. Name/Father's name 2035 Abid Baig Mughal son of Anwar Baig 2036 Mazhar Ali Kichi son of Arbab 2052 Ahsanullah Shaikh son of Atta Muhammad 2063 Shalal son of Mohanlal 2110 Ali Sher son of M. Ayub Jatoi 2111 Muzafar Ali Shaikh son of Sh. Rahim Bakhsh 2139 Muhammad Ibrahim son of Abdul Sattar
(8) 2101 Khalil Ahmed son of Lutfullah Siddiqui
(9) 2121 Qamber Ali Burdi son of Mehrab Khan
(10) 2123 Abdul Rehman son of Wali Muhammed
(11) 2117 Aijaz Ahmed son of Muhammad Bachal.. {{TABLE}} ' The Controller of Examination sent a reply, dated 10-5-1983 which reads as under: "The result of all the students whose seat numbers are given below have been cancelled as per your recommendations."
17. Chemical Engineering. 1970, 1987, 1992 and 2068 Metallurgical Engineering.
18. 1981, 1983, 2035, 2036, 2052, 2062, 2101, 2110, 2111, 2117, 2121, 2123, 2139 and 2003."
19. ' We have perused the correspondence exchanged between the respondent No.1 and the Controller of Examination. It would not show in what circumstances the respondent No. 1 requested the Controller of Examination for cancellation of results. There was nothing to show that the petitioners were informed of the cancellation of results. It is submitted by Mr. Wadood that the results were cancelled in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice.
20. ' Mr. Ataur Rehman, however, submitted that the petitioners had never got admission in the college and the documents All to A/9 are forged documents and they are not on roll of the College but appeared in the first semester with the collusion of the staff of the respondent No.1. Mr. Wadood drew our attention to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2 in Civil Petition No. 64 of 1985. The respondent No. 2 submitted therein that the record of respondent No.2 pertaining to examination of candidates from Dawood College is based and compiled on the basis of the list of students and the attendance sheets, forwarded by the respondent No.1 showing the necessary particulars of the students, appeared in any examination.
21. ' In the instant case it appears that the respondent No.1 merely made a recommendation for cancellation of the petitioners examination alongwith a large number of other students without any finding on facts and no reasons were even assigned for making such recommendation excepting that their results be cancelled. We are of the opinion that no punishment could be inflicted upon the students concerned on a mere recommendation of the respondent No.1 ' For the aforesaid reasons, the order of cancellation of the examination results of the petitioners, in our view, suffers from serious infirmity and must be struck down as invalid.
22. ' Regarding the second contention the grievance of the petitioners is that no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners. In fact no enquiry was conducted. In fact, every thing was done behind the back of the petitioners. His submission is that the admission of a student cannot be cancelled without affording an opportunity as provided by Rule 8.8 of Prospectus 1981-82 of D.C.E.T.
23. So, the admissions were cancelled in flagrant violation of Rule 8.8 and principles of natural justice.
24. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel on the cases University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmed PLD 1965 SC 90, Muhammad Bashir v. University of the Punjab and another PLD 1967 Lah. 1204, Malik Abdul Majid v. Disciplinary Committee of the University of the Punjab, Lahore and another PLD 1970 Lah. 416, Bapalal v. Collector of Central Excise AIR 1865 Guj. 135 and Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (now Amalgamated Engineering and Foundry Workers Union) and others (1971) 1 All E R 1148.
25. ' The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in above-cited first case and more particularly on the following observations in that judgment which appear at page 104 and run as follows: - "Of course, the person, body or authority concerned must act in good faith, but it would appear that it is not bound to treat the matter as if it was a trial or to administer oath or examine witnesses in the presence of the person accused or give him facility for cross-examining the witnesses against him or even to serve a formal charge-sheet upon him. Such a person or authority can obtain information in any way it thinks fit, provided it gives a fair opportunity to the person sought to be affected to correct or contradict any relevant statement prejudicial to him. In other words, 'in order to act justly and to reach just ends by just means' the Courts insist that the person or authority should have adopted the above 'elementary and essential principles' unless the same had been expressly excluded by the enactment empowering him to so act."
26. ' Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of Lahore High Court in the cases reported in PLD 1967 Lah. 1204 and PLD 1970 Lah.
416. In Malik Abdul Majid, a Division Bench of the High Court interpreted it as if the right of a student that the Disciplinary Committee should examine the witnesses in his presence and that he has a right to cross-examine them. The case of Malik Abdul Majid was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in appeal filed by the University. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. However, while clarifying that the dismissal of the appeal does not mean that the Hon'ble Court was approving of the principles laid down by the High Court. It was observed that the same ran counter to the principles laid down in the case of University of Dacca. In case of Abdul Majid stood overruled in Civil Appeal No. 256 of 1969 decided on 7-5-1970. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmad and 3 others v. Vice-Chancellor, University of Engineering and Technology and another PLD 1981 SC 464 observed as follows:- "As the case of Abdul Majid stood overruled, therefore, the other cases wherein reliance was placed on the said case or 'principle' to that extent, also stood overruled. We might make mention of three cases in this behalf which have come to our notice."
27. ' The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the Court of appeal in Breen v.
28. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971) 1 A E R 1148 and more particularly on the following observation in that judgment which appear at page 1153:- "Take first statutory bodies. It is now well-settled that a statutory body, is entrusted by statute with a discretion, must act fairly. It does not matter whether its functions are described as judicial or quasi-judicial on the one hand, or as administrative on the other hand, or what you will. Still it must act fairly. It must, in a proper case, give a party a chance to be heard."
29. ' A bare perusal of letters, dated 16-1-1983, 25-4-1983 and 7-4-1983 would show that in the absence of proper report with its finding by the respodent No.1 it is not possible for the Controller of Examination either to consider the letter of the respondent No.1 or to arrive at any finding whatsoever. It seems to us fairly clear that the respondent No.2 failed to give a report from which a conclusion could have been reached by the Controller of Examination one way or the other. In fact, also already noticed, there was no report by the respondent No.1 with its finding on fact but there was a mere recommendation for cancellation of the examination of the students including the petitioners. From their letters it is impossible to conclude that there was any evidence either direct or circumstances to justify the conclusion that might have been reached by the Controller of Examination in cancelling the examination of the students. So, in absence of proper material or report with finding of the respondent No.1 the order cancelling the examination of the petitioners cannot be sustained as valid.
30. ' The prospectus issued by the Ministry of Education relating to the admission, conduct and discipline of the students in part 8 provides for admission. Clause 8.1 provides criteria for selection/preference and also provides requirements for admission. Clause 8.5 provides procedure for acceptance of applications. Clause 8.8 provides procedure for cancellation/withdrawal of admission. In the face of such clauses in prospectus it is not possible for the petitioners to have been admitted without complying with the provisions of the prospectus. The respondent No.1 has failed to produce any authentic document or any record which should be in their possession to show that the petitioners never joined the college. As no record has been produced which in the ordinary course of management and administration of the college should have been maintained, the contention of the respondent No. 1 cannot be accepted. In these circumstances the objection raised by the respondent No.1 that the petitioners were not admitted in the college is not valid and has not been established prima facie.
31. ' For the aforesaid reasons the entire action taken against the petitioners was invalid as admission of the petitioners could not be cancelled or withdrawn without being given an opportunity to show cause why their admission should not be cancelled.
32. ' In the result, the petitions succeeded by a short order, dated 3-4-1986 which reads as under:- "For reasons to be recorded later, we quash the impugned orders as having been passed without lawful authority and in the result we allow the petition. However, we leave it open to the authorities impleaded as respondents in the petition to take action against the petitioner, if they so desire, but strictly according to law and rules of prospectus and if any action is taken, which is adverse to be interest of the petitioner then the same can be taken, if permissible under rules, but after giving right of hearing to the petitioner as contemplated under Rule 8.8 of the prospectus 1981-82. There will be no order as to costs."
33. ' The above are the reasons for the same. The letters, dated 25-4-1983, 16-1-1983 intimating in the impugned order of cancellation of the results of the examination of the petitioners are all out. We make it clear, however, that all proceedings, and orders made in respect of all other students mentioned in the said letters remain unaffected. The judgment we deliver, will only apply to the petitioners.