' The brief facts are that the petitioner got admission in M. A. English Language and Literature in the University of the Punjab. She appeared in the Annual Examination of M. A. (Previous) and qualified the same securing 237 marks out of 500 marks. Thereafter she appeared in the Final Examination and obtained 283 marks out of 500 marks and was also declared First having secured the highest marks.
2. On 10-11-1993 the petitioner received notice from respondent No, 3 to show cause why she should not be disqualified under Regulation 16 of the Punjab University Regulations on the basis that in her Answer Books she initially wrote wrong dates which she scored out and wrote correct dates, thereby disclosing her identity. The petitioner submitted reply and denied the allegations. Finally she also appeared before the Disciplinary Committee (respondent No, 3) and explained her position. Since no decision was communicated to the petitioner she approached respondent No, 3 for finalization of the matter. She also made a representation to the Chancellor of the University.
Ultimately she also filed W. P. No, 11141 of 1994, seeking direction to the respondents for disposal of her case. The writ petition was disposed of by my learned brother Muhammad Asif Jan, J. On 26-4- 1994.
3. In the month of May, 1995, the petitioner received Memorandum No,D/3402/H-95 dated 17-5- 1995 informing her that the Vice-Chancellor of the University quashed the result of the petitioner of M. A. English Part II, Ist Annual Examination of 1991 in exercise of power under section 15, subsection
(3) of the University of Punjab Act, 1973 on the basis of the decision of the Disciplinary Committee.
4. The petitioner appeared in M. A. English Part II, First Annual Examination of 1991 under Roll No, 6054. She was alleged to have disclosed her identity by correcting the dates on the Answer Books, which, according to the respondents, attracted Regulation No, 16 of the 'University, which is as follows:- "Any candidate found guilty of disclosing his identity or making peculiar mark in his Answer Book for that purpose shall--
(a) if he is successful in the examination be disqualified from passing the examination that year; or
(b) if unsuccessful in the examination be disqualified for that year and the following year."
5. The aforesaid memorandum dated 17-5-1995 whereby the result of the petitioner was quashed does not disclose any reason for such a drastic action. It has not been established that by scoring out wrong date and writing correct one on the Answer Book, the petitioner intended to disclose her identity thereby taking any advantage in the examination. The petitioner has denied the assertion of disclosing her identity by this act. There is no evidence to show that she disclosed her identity.
The decisions of the Disciplinary Committee and of the Vice-Chancellor are not based on any evidence, nor does the aforesaid memorandum disclose any good ground for such a drastic action against the petitioner.
6. Besides, the result of the petitioner in the Final M. A. English Examination was declared by notification dated 22-5-1993 and the decision was taken by the respondents after two years in May, 1995, disqualifying her for a period of one year. As a consequence of this order, the petitioner would stand A disqualified for about four years, inasmuch as she would have to take final examination again, which would be held some time after the memorandum dated 17-5-1995. Such a long delay of more than two years (as the examination was held in the year 1992) in taking the decision by the respondent cannot, be condoned, especially in view of the aforesaid necessary consequence. It was in these circumstances that the learned Legal Advisor of the Punjab University very rightly stated that the action taken by the respondents could not be defended and, therefore, did not want to contest the case. As a matter of fact, Regulation No, 16 does not empower the respondent University to impose such a penalty, unless there is a positive proof that the candidate committed unfair practice by disclosing his/her identity. In the absence of any legal evidence on record, the petitioner could not be punished for having corrected date on the Answer Book, by giving fmding of guilt against her of disclosing her identity. Therefore, in my opinion, Regulation No, 16 is not attracted in the present case. Similarly, the provision of section 15(3) of the University of Punjab Act, 1973 is also not attracted to the facts of the present case. This provision of law authorises the Vice-Chancellor of the University to take action in emergency and report his action for approval to the authority which, in the ordinary course, would have dealt with the matter.
7. It has not been controverted that the petitioner had a brilliant academic record throughout. She admittedly qualified her MA. Previous securing 237 out of 500 marks. Even before that, she qualified her BA. Examination in First Division from the University of Punjab. Her brilliant academic career also points to the fact that the petitioner did not intend to disclose her identity by correcting the date on the Answer Book. It could be a genuine mistake on her part without making it an identification mark. There is no allegation against the petitioner that she manoeuvred to obtain 283 marks in her Final Examination or that the answers given by her in the said examination could not carry such high marks.
8. For the foregoing reasons this writ petition is accepted and the order quashing the result of the petitioner in M.A. English (Final) as contained in the notification dated 17-5-1995 issued by respondent No, 3 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.