' Vide my order dated the 10th of October, 1995, this Constitutional petition was accepted for reasons to be recorded later.
2. The following are the facts leading to this Constitutional petition and also the reasons for the acceptance of the said petition.
3. Miss Afshan Amjad petitioner matriculated from the Queen Marry School of Lahore in the Matriculation examination held by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education of Lahore in 1983 by obtaining 731 marks out of a maximum of 850 marks and was placed in the Ist Division.
' Thereafter she passed the Intermediate Examination from the Kinnard College of Lahore by obtaining 761 marks out of a maximum of 1100 marks in the Intermediate Examination held by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education of Lahore in 1985 and was placed in the Ist Division.
4. Having done her Matriculation and having passed the Intermediate Examination and having been placed in the Ist Division in both these examinations, the petitioner was admitted in the Department of Pharmacy, University of the Piinjab, Lahore. The Ist Professional Examination was held in 1987. The petitioner obtained 623 marks out of a maximum of 900 marks and was placed in the Ist Division.
' However, in the said examination, the Bio-Chemistry paper could not be held as per schedule because there was a forced walk-out by the students on the date of that particular paper.
Consequently, the examination for the subject of Bio-Chemistry was held by the University for the first time in December, 1987, as a continuation and completion of the Ist Professional Examination of 1987.
5. The 2nd Professional Examination was held by the University in 1988. The petitioner obtained 634 marks out of a maximum of 900 marks. The petitioner was placed in the 1st Division.
6. The 3rd Professional Examination was held in 1989. The petitioner obtained 576 marks out of a maximum of 900 marks. The petitioner was placed in the Ist Division.
7. The 4th Professional Examination which is the last Examination of the Faculty of Pharmacy was held in 1990. The petitioner obtained 637 marks out of a maximum of 1000 marks. The petitioner was placed in the Ist Division.
' In this last examination the petitioner stood first amongst all the candidates who took the said examination.
8. Thus, the petitioner has been a first divisioner throughout her entire academic career.
9. Consequently, on the 23rd of December, 1992, the Department Of Pharmacy, University of the Punjab, Lahore, issued a certificate to the effect that:-- "Miss Afshan Amjad has qualified the B. Pharmacy Examinations of 1990 (Annual). Her session of attendance was 1986-90.
' According to the University results and the aggregate marks of the 4 professional examinations she stands first in the B. Pharmacy Examinations of the University of the Punjab."
10. Earlier on the 26th of March, 1991, the Faculty of Pharmacy, University of the Punjab, Lahore, had issued a certificate to the effect that:- "Miss Afshan Amjad has been awarded the "President's Scholarship for Pharmacy Students" for 4th Professional, B. Pharmacy Class, Session 1989-90.
' This scholarship has been awarded to her on the basis of her results in the B. Pharmacy, I, II and III Professional Examinations."
11. Accordingly, the Vice-Chairman, Quality Control, Ministry of Health, Special Education and Social Welfare (Health Division), Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, issued a letter/certificate regarding the subject of President's Scholarship for Pharmacy Students which concluded by recording that Miss Afshan Amjad had secured a total of 1833 marks in the I, II and III Professional Examinations of B. Pharmacy which were the highest obtained by a student and therefore, "the name of Miss Afshan Amjad has been recommended for award of President's Scholarship who on average has shown best results during the previous years of B. Pharmacy".
12. The matter of awarding the Gold Medal came for consideration in a meeting of the Board Studies, Department of Pharmacy, University of the Punjab, Lahore, held on the 19th of December, 1992, at item No, VII, wherein it was recorded as follows:-- "In the case of awarding the Gold Medal to Miss Afshan Amjad, it was held by the Board that student deserves the Gold Medal. In this matter the case may be sent to the proper authority after recommendations of the Chairman and the Dean, Faculty of Pharmacy."
13. The Gold Medal to which the petitioner had undoubtedly become entitled on the basis of her consistent academic record having been placed in the Ist Division and having obtained the highest marks in all the Professional Examinations held by the respondent-University, was denied to the petitioner. Hence, the Constitutional petition praying that the petitioner's entitlement to secure the Gold Medal on the basis of the recommendations of the respondent-University be not interfered with by the University and the petitioner be declared entitled to receive the Gold Medal in question.
14. The respondent-University has not denied the factual position taken by the petitioner and has conceded that:- "The petitioner secured highest marks as far as the aggregate in four Professional Examinations of the B-Pharmacy Degree, but it is submitted that she did not clear the Ist Professional B. Pharmacy Examination in first attempt, which was subsequently cleared in the supplementary examinations."
' It is the ease of the respondent-University that:- "According to the University Regulation (Annexure R/1), the University Gold Medal will be awarded to a candidate securing the highest marks in aggregate of marks in the first, second, third and final professional examinations and this (medal) shall be awarded to a candidate, who passes in all the examinations in the annual and in the first attempt."
(Underlining by the respondent-University in the written statement).
15. It was on the basis of this interpretation of recommendations of the Board of Studies in Pharmacy, made in a meeting held on the 17th of October, 1989, that the Gold Medal in question was being denied to the petitioner.
16. The abovementioned recommendations of the Board of Studies in Pharmacy have been placed on record by the respondent-University as Annex-R/,1 and reads as follows:-- "The Vice-Chancellor has, in anticipation of the approval of the relevant Bodies, been pleased to approve the following recommendations of Board of Studies in Pharmacy, made in a meeting held on 17-10-1989.
'University Gold Medal' be awarded to a candidate securing the highest marks in the aggregate of marks in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and Final Professional Examinations and this medal shall be awarded to a candidate who passes in all the examinations in the Annual and in the first attempt. The Medal is to be awarded from the current financial year."
17. Apart from the fact that the anticipated approval of the relevant bodies has not been placed on record, an indepth examination of the said recommendation reveals that the University Gold Medal is to be awarded to a candidate securing the highest marks in the aggregate of marks in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and Final Professional Examinations. That the petitioner fulfils this first requirement, has been conceded by the respondent-University. The next requirement for being awarded the University Gold Medal is that the candidate should have passed in all the examinations in the Annual and in the First attempt. Admittedly, one paper i,e, Bio-Chemistry could not be attempted by all the students including the petitioner in the First Professional Examination because of a general strike by the students, resulting in a walk-out. Consequently, the respondent-University was constrained to complete the First Professional Annual Examination by conducting the examination for the BioChemistry Subject alone in December, 1987, which was in continuation and completion of the 1st Professional Annual Examination. The petitioner admittedly passed this examination when it was finally and completely held by the respondent-University, in the 1st Division and in her first attempt. The fact that the Bio-Chemistry paper of the 1st Professional Examination in question could not be held by the respondent-University, cannot by any stretch of reasoning or logic be used against the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was compelled by force of circumstances beyond her control to take the examination in the Bio-Chemistry Paper on account of the failure of the respondent-University to conduct the examination according to the given schedule.
Be that as it may, the petitioner did not fail in the 1st Professional Annual Examination but passed in the said examination in her first attempt. Thus, clearly the petitioner meets this requirement also.
18. Once the University declares the result of a given examination, no locus poenitentiae is left to recall the declared result because thereafter the University becomes functus officio and the consequences which flow from a declaration of the result cannot be set at naught.
19. Apart from and independently of section 21 of the General Clauses Act of 1897, the common law principle of locus poenitentiae which literally means a place for repentance, an opportunity to undo what has been done, in other words the power of receding till a decisive step has been taken and which was so lucidly enunciated in the case of Venkatesh Yeshwant Deshpande v. Emperor reported in AIR 1938 Nagpur page 513 (Full Bench) and has been applied eversince by the superior Courts of Pakistan in the following cases:--
(i) Shahbaz v. The Crown (PLD 1956 Federal Court 46);
(ii) Khondkar Ali Afzal v. Pakistan and another (PLD 1959 (W.P.) Karachi 105);
(iii) Pakistan v. Khondkar Ali Afzal (PLD 1960 Supreme Court 1);
(iv) Pakistan v. Muhammad Himayatullah (PLD 1969 Supreme Court 407);
(v) Lt.-Col. G.L. Battacharya v. The State (PLD 1964 Supreme Court 503);
(vi) Mukhtar Ahmad v. Government of West Pakistan (PLD 1971 Supreme Court 846);
(vii) Raja Muhammad Nawaz v. Government of the Punjab (1981 SCM R 523); (viii)Muhammad Aslam v. Managing Director, Punjab Small Industries Corporation (1993 PLC (C.S.)
1023);
(ix) Engineering-in-Chief Branch v. Jalaluddin (PLD 1992 Supreme Court 207);
(x) Pakistan v. Hussain Ali (PLD 1960 Supreme Court 310);
(xi) Province of East Pakistan v. Muhammad Yaseen Qureshi (PLD 1964 Supreme Court 438);
(xii) Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs v. Azizuddin Industries Ltd. (PLD 1970 Supreme Court 439), and (xiii)Miss Anis Kubra and others v. Province of Sindh and others (PLD 1978 Karachi 556), is applicable to the facts of the present case.
20. Even in equity, the petitioner deserved the Gold Medal in question and its denial to the petitioner was harsh and arbitrary because the respondent-University has conceded that the petitioner's aggregate marks in all the examinations were the highest and it was only fair and equitable that a legal, vested right which had accrued to the petitioner, be not denied to her.
21. The petitioner's Constitutional petition was accepted on account of the aforementioned facts and reasons.