1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C J.--The order dated 10-2-1993 passed in this Human Right Case shall be read as part of this order. The matter having been re-examined by the Jury of appeal their verdict is as follows:-- "DETAIL REPORT OF THE JURY OF APPEAL IN RESPECT OF ROLL NO.36517 MR. NADEEM KHAN INTERMEDIATE ANNU AL EXAMINATION, 1992 Mr. Nadeem Khan Roll No,36517 a candidate in Intermediate Annual Examination, 1992 and punished for using unfair means was interviewed by the jury comprising two members on 14-2-1993. He was accompanied by his elder brother. He refuted the charge of cheating and pleaded not guilty whereas he had made a confession before the Disciplinary Committee little earlier. The candidate was heard with patience and a number of questions were asked. He even denied the possession of the cheating material attached with his script. The case of cheating has been reported in the subject of Chemistry. The jury deemed it necessary to obtain the report of the Subject Expert. One of the Sub-Examiners in the subject of Chemistry, who was available at that time, was asked to give his opinion. According to the Sub-Examiner, the candidate has not copied from the cheating material as he did not attempt the question from the cheating material is relevant to. The cheating material pertains to Question No,X-a and b. In the Question Paper. The candidate had brought the cheating material to the Examination Hall with the intention to take help from this in answering question No,X but he did not get a chance of copying from this material. The possession of objectionable material in the examination is an offence and the punishment meted out is the cancellation of the paper. The candidate has been punished for possessing objectionable material in the examination, and the punishment awarded to him i,e, the cancellation of the relevant paper, is the minimum.
2. (Sd.) (Sd.)
3. Prof. Dr. Shah Rukh Chughtai Prof. Jehanzeb Niaz."
4. Learned counsel for the applicant tried to argue that the material before the jury of appeal was not enough to render a finding of fact against the applicant. We having seen the record, which was before the jury, are satisfied that the findings against the applicant are unexceptionable.
5. Accordingly, the minimum punishment awarded to him i,e, the cancellation of the relevant paper shall stand as it is.
6. ' Next the learned counsel .Argued that despite the punishment the applicant can be favoured in the parental jurisdiction of this Court as well as of the respondent by permitting him to continue his studies in the Engineering University on provisional basis. Learned counsel for the respondent has not opposed this plea. It is also fair that the petitioner be allowed to continue his studies in the Engineering Univesity on provisional basis. His attendance should be marked and counted in a separate register kept for the provisional students. During the time that his admission remained under suspension, we have been told, he did attend several classes. The attendance during that period may also be added to the aforementioned attendance even if not on actual basis (if there is no record thereof) at least on the average basis. In the meanwhile he may avail of the chances permitted under the law, rules and practice for clearing the examination in the subject in question.
7. If he succeeds the provisional admission shall stand confirmed with retrospective effect with all the other beneficial consequences to the applicant. If despite all these concessions he fails then he shall have no right to continue as a student of the Engineering University and his admission therein shall stand cancelled with retrospective effect as if it never existed.
8. ' With the above orders this Constitution petition stands disposed of.