' This Constitutional petition has been filed by Mst. Kalsoom Ara for a direction against respondent/Controller of Examination, University of Punjab for declaration of her B.Ed. Result, in an examination held in June, 1989.
2. Report and parawise comments were filed on behalf of respondent and writ petition was opposed relying on Regulation No,3, Chapter VII, Conduct of Examinations, Calendar of University of the Punjab for the year 1990, Volume I which is to the effect that "A candidate permitted to take a degree examination of the University shall not be permitted to take another degree examination in the same year". This Regulation is reproduced in the report itself.
3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent also relied upon the definition of term "Academic year which means "the total period during which instruction is required for the purposes of any examination between the commencement of one examination and the commencement of the next examination, twelve months later". In this view of the matter, learned counsel for respondent/University are pleading dismissal of writ petition. According to them, the petitioner cannot appear in two examinations in the same year. This position, however, is vehemently controverted by the learned counsel for petitioner.
4. Undisputed facts of the case are that petitioner applied and consequently appeared in B.A.
Annual Examination, 1988 at Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan and was declared successful.
After the lapse of one year, she applied in 1989 for B.Ed. Examination which was held in June, 1989, after obtaining migration certificate, dated 4-2-1989 from the Bahauddin Zakariya University.
Respondent issued her Role No,4670 and she appeared in the said examination but her result was withheld. Thereafter, she was protesting against this action of respondent by filing different applications at different levels and finally Deputy Controller Examinations University of the Punjab communicated to Mr. Nur Muhammad Chaudhry, Under-Secretary University, Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Secretariat Lahore to the effect that "kindly refer to your Letter No, (US 11) A.E.158/91, dated 2nd March, 1991 regarding the case of Miss Kalsoom Ara, Roll No,4670 for the B.Ed. Annual Examination, 1988 held in June, 1989. The Roll No, of the candidate was detained for the said examination because the candidate has passed the BA. First Annual Examination, 1988.
Therefore, she is not eligible to appear in this examination in the same session under the rules".
5. The same position, it appears from paras. 2 and 3 of the report, has been taken to contend that "the petitioner applied for being .Admitted to the B.Ed. Annual Examination of 1989 to be held in May, 1989. Her Roll Number was detained, and, was informed by letter, dated 11-12-1989 that she was not eligible to appear in the B.Ed. Examination of 1988.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties short question arises if there is any legal disability for the petitioner to have appeared in the B.Ed. Annual Examination, 1989 while she had already passed her BA. Examination in 1988 from Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan.
7. Learned counsel for respondent have relied upon aforementioned Regulation and also the definition of "academic year" to contend that petitioner cannot appear in two examinations in the same year. It is emphasized that although the petitioner passed her B.A. Examination in 1988 and appeared in B.Ed. Examination in 1989 but according to interpretation the latter examination is called as Annual Examination, 1988 and, therefore, in this manner she cannot be permitted to sit in two examinations in the same year.
8. I have heard this case more than once and am of the firm view that plea on behalf of respondent is not only irrational but harsh and is not countenanced or supported by any provisions of law.
Petitioner admittedly appeared in BA. Annual Examination, 1988 and thereafter obtained migration certificate and appeared in B.Ed. Examination in June, 1989 after the lapse of one year from her first examination. There is, therefore, gap of one year between two examinations and by no stretch of imagination it can be held that petitioner appeared in these examinations in one and the same year. The position taken up by respondent that Roll Number issued to the petitioner was detained was wholly misconceived and is manifestly contradicted from the record itself and this is so clear from Annexure R/1 issued by the respondent to the petitioner vide letter, dated 11-12-1989 informing her that "reference your permission form No,4670 to appear in the B.Ed. First Annual Examination, 1988 to be held in June, 1989. You passed your BA. First Annual Examination, 1988 and can take the B.Ed. First Annual Examination, 1988 i,e, one year after graduation. Then there is Annexure R/2 which is application form of petitioner printed as "Application for Permission to appear as a Private Candidate in the B.Ed. First Annual Examination, 1989 to be held in May, 1989". On this form No,6302, Roll Number 4670 is allocated to the petitioner and thereafter she deposited the requisite admission fee and appeared in the examination. The plea of respondent that Roll Number of petitioner was detained is absolutely incorrect and cannot, in any manner, be appreciated particularly when they are dealing With the students and exercising parental jurisdiction. The admission form of petitioner is, dated 11-2-1989 and the same was accepted acid in pursuance thereof she appeared in B.Ed. Examination in June, 1989 and it is for the first time that letter, dated 11-12-1989 was issued regarding withholding of her Roll Number. As this letter is much after the examination held in June, 1989, the plea of withholding the result would not be of any help to the respondent. Additionally if the Roll Number had been detained, respondent would have informed the relevant Centre Superintendent but this having not been done, the petitioner rightly appeared in the examination. In fact the aforementioned letter, dated 11-12-1989 is much after the admission form of petitioner, issuance of Roll Number, deposit of necessary admission fee and taking up the requisite examination. In these circumstances, the plea of respondent as to withholding the result of petitioner is not relevant.
9. As to the provisions of Regulation No,3, aforesaid, it is clearly stated that a candidate permitted to take a degree examination of the University shall not be permitted to take another degree examination in the same year. The %term "same year" is very important for the purpose of this case and the plea of respondent could be worth consideration if the petitioner had taken both BA.
Annual and B.Ed. Examinations in the same year but admittedly first examination was taken in the year 1988 while B.Ed. Examination in the year 1989. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that petitioner had taken both the examinations in one and the same year. Further, plea of respondent that although petitioner had taken B.Ed. Annual Examination in the year 1989 but the University calls it as Annual' Examination 1988 and, therefore, both the examinations can be said to have taken in the same year, cannot be accepted. This plea is based on the interpretation of respondent/University that whenever an examination is held in a particular year it cannot be called of the same but of previous year. Even if this contention is accepted, the respondents are caught in their own web. In this particular case, petitioner appeared in B.A. Annual Examination 1988, which according to own showing of respondent, could be termed as 1987 Examination. Looked from any angle, therefore, there is a gap of clear twelve months between the first and the second examination. In these circumstances, plea of respondent disallowing the petitioner to take benefit of latter examination, is devoid of any force being clearly to her disadvantage. A situation may arise where a candidate appears in two examinations in one and the same year and it may be argued that this is legally permissible. However, this issue can be examined in an appropriate case.
The facts of the present case are wholly different and the respondent, by no stretch of imagination, can hold the taking up of two examinations, one insthe year 1988 and the other in the year 1989, the "same year".
10. In New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of. The English Language, Encyclopaedic Edition, "year" has been defined as "a period regarded as the major time unit in some way, though not corresponding with a calendar year, the academic year ends in June" In the Concise Oxford Dictionary, Eighth Edition, "academic year" is defined as "a period of nearly a year ,reckoned from the time of the main student intake, usu. From the beginning of the autumn term to the end of the summer term".
Similarly in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, it is stated that 'when the period of a 'year' is named, a calendar year is generally intended, but the subject-matter or context of statute or contract in which the term is found or to which it relates may alter its meaning". On page 204 of the same Dictionary, calendar year is defined as "the period from January 1 to December 31 inclusive.
Ordinarily calendar year means 365 days except leap year and is composed of 12 months varying in length".
11. From the above, it can reasonably be inferred that interpretation of respondent of the word "same year" or "academic year" is not only arbitrary but whimsical particularly when, as already observed, there is a gap of full 12 months between the two examinations. The plea of respondent, therefore, that they were right in withholding the result of petitioner is invalid and has to be rejected.
12. Respondent relied upon an unreported judgment, dated 22-1-1980 in 1.CA. No,116 of 1979 to plead that the term "academic year" has been discussed in' this appeal. I have gone through this judgment and find that facts of this case were wholly different and in any case there is no such finding as is claimed by the respondent.
13. There is another aspect of the case, pleaded by the learned counsel for petitioner, that principle of locus poenitentiae is fully applicable to the facts of this case as in the instant case, admission form of petitioner was accepted by the respondent, fee thereof was deposited and accepted, Roll Number was issued and that the petitioner sat and completed the examination. This principle has been fully enunciated in case-law such as Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v.
Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi PLD 1969 SC 407, Lt.-Col. G.L. Battacharya v. The State and others PLD 1964 SC 503, Pakistan and another v. Hussain Ali Shah A. Fazalani PLD 1960 SC 310, Sh.
Muhammad Nawaz v. The Secretary Irrigation PLD 1973 Quetta 14, Munir Ahmad v. University of Balochistan PLD 1979 Quetta 131, Shahbaz v. The Crown PLD 1956 FC 46, The Province of East Pakistan v. Muhammad Yaseen Oureshi PLD 1964 SC 438, Dr. Mahboob Rabbani v. Government of West Pakistan. PLD 1963 Lah. 53, Farid Khan v. The State PLD 1965 Pesh. 31 and The Engineer-in-Chief Branch v. Jalaluddin PLD 1992 SC 207 and may be aptly applicable in this case. On this ground also there was no legal justification for the respondent to withhold the result of petitioner and the plea of detaining the Roll Number is obviously incorrect otherwise she would not have appeared in the examination. Learned counsel for petitioner cited case-law to the effect that.University Authority exercised parental jurisdiction and this proposition is not controverted by the learned counsel for respondent but I must say that on facts and circumstances of the present case, respondent/Controller of Examination could not have withheld the result of petitioner and in this manner, was not exercising parental jurisdiction but is accused of unknown animosity.
14. The plea of respondent as to the lathes in filing of present writ petition can also not be accepted as the petitioner was filing applications at different levels which is fully proved from the reply dated 27-4-1991 of the Deputy Controller Examinations to the Under-Secretary University, Government of Punjab, Annexure "C" to the petitioner.
13. For what has been said above, action of respondent in withholding the result of petitioner of B.Ed.
Annual Examination, 1989 is declared to be without lawful Authority and of no legal effect and respondent/Controller of Examination is directed to declare this result within one month positively.
In these terms, the writ petition is accepted.
' Result of petitioner was to be declared in 1989 but in spite of best efforts, respondents were not accepting her request that finally forced her to enter into litigation. In these circumstances, respondents are burdened with cost of Rs,5,000 to be paid to the petitioner within one month.
' Office to transmit a copy of this judgment to respondent/Controller of Examinations.