' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---This is a joint appeal filed by Azad Jammu and Kashmir University and the Controller of Examination of the aforementioned University through which order of the High Court announced on 20th of January, 1994 has been challenged. The High Court accepted a writ petition filed by respondents, Muhammad Malik, Muhammad Khalid and Zafar Iqbal, impugned letters written on behalf of the University in respect of the respondents were quashed and the present appellants were refrained from cancelling the B. Ed. Result of the respondents.
2. In their writ petition the respondents stated that they were Primary Teachers in the Education Department of the Government and have put in about ten years' service. On this basis they appeared in the B. Ed. Examination and were declared successful. Consequently their salary and other allowances were increased on the basis of their newly acquired academic qualifications.
Subsequently, the University Authorities initiated proceedings for cancelling the aforesaid degree on the ground that they had no teaching experience because they were Physical Instructors and were not, thus, eligible to sit in the B.Ed. Examination. They challenged letters sent to them by the Controller of Examinations through the Director of Education. In the writ petition they raised the plea that they were fully qualified to appear in the B.Ed. Examination because they conformed to the description of teachers. They also pleaded that a valuable right had accrued to them because for a long time they were enjoying the fruits of B.Ed. Degrees in the shape of enhanced salary etc. Making it illegal to withdraw them. Another important point going to the root of the case raised by them was that cancellation of degree after a period of three years was not allowed by law.
3. While accepting the writ petition the High Court expressed the view that the respondents were teachers as was apparent from their appointment orders. The High Court noted the requirement of eligibility as a private student for B. Ed. Examination was that the examinee must be a teacher at the time of applying for permission and he should produce a certificate of teaching experience signed or countersigned by the District Education Officer. The High Court has held that the respondents fulfilled these requirements. It was urged before the High Court that power to cancel a degree was exercisable within three years but the High Court did not comment on this aspect of the case. The main burden of the judgment is that the respondents were qualified to take the examination, and therefore, the University could not now act against them. The High Court overruled an objection that an alternate remedy was available by way of appeal to the Syndicate on the ground that remedy was not adequate.
4. We have heard Sh. Abdul Aziz, Advocate, in support of the appeal and Kh. Noor-ul-Amin, Advocate, on behalf of the respondents. They addressed arguments on all aspects of the case but we need not discuss all the points because the appeal can be decided on the short ground- that power to cancel a result is exercisable within three years which had already elapsed.
5. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition it was claimed by the respondents that two of them passed their B.Ed. Examination in 1987 while the third passed it in 1986. In the written statement this averment was not denied. Therefore, it will be deemed to have been accepted. However, in reply to this paragraph it was stated that the examination had been taken by them in violation of the rules because they were not teachers in the general line. It was also stated that the result of the respondents had already been declared invalid but that cancellation had not been challenged in the High Court. It is clear from the record that this assertion about cancellation relates to the period when the writ petition was pending in the High Court. The writ petition was filed on 28th of July, 1993 and the letters challenged in the writ petition were issued on 29th of May, 1993. It is thus, clear from the contents of the letters that on 29th of May, 1991 when the letters were issued the case for cancellation of the respondents result was being processed by the concerned Authorities. On the date when letters were issued a period of more than six years had already elapsed since the declaration of respondents' B.Ed. Result. The result sheets of the respondents have been attached with the writ petition which show that the averment is correct that they passed the examination in 1986 and 1987. In this view of the matter it becomes clear that the proceedings for cancellation were taken after six years.
6. The power claimed by the University for quashing of a result is contained in rule 22. It lays down that Syndicate has the power to quash the result or to withdraw the degree of a candidate for the reasons stated in the rules. The reason enumerated in third para. Is that the candidate was not eligible to appear in the examination. The rule is subject to the following proviso:--- "Provided that the order of quashing the result under paras. 2 and 3 is issued not later than three years from the date of declaration of the result of the examination concerned."
' The proceedings undertaken by the University for quashing of the results were, therefore, clearly in violation of the aforesaid proviso.
7. It was pleaded by the appellants in the written statement that an alternate remedy by way of appeal to the Syndicate was available but the writ petition was filed without availing that remedy.
This argument has been repelled by the High Court on the ground that the aforesaid remedy is not adequate. This argument has been reiterated before us. We notice that under rule 22 mentioned above the power to quash the result or withdraw a degree is vested in the Syndicate of the University. Thus, even if the contention of the appellants is factually correct, the reconsideration of the case by the same body, namely, the Syndicate, cannot be termed as adequate.
8. It was also argued by Sh. Abdul Aziz, the learned counsel for the appellants, that the letters quashed by the High Court were in substance notices and no writ lies against a notice. This objection has been rightly met by contending that a writ of prohibition available under sub-clause
(i) of clause (a) of section 44(2) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act lies before completion of an illegal act. Apart from that if a letter or notice is issued without lawful authority it can be termed as "act done" or "proceedings taken" within the meaning of sub-clause
(ii) of clause (a) and a declaration that it is of no legal effect can be given.
9. Before parting with the case we notice that it was stated in the written statement that the order of cancellation of the result had been passed but it had not been challenged. When the writ petition was admitted for regular hearing on 29th of July, 1993 the High Court passed an order on a stay application as follows:--- "......The respondents are, therefore, directed to refrain from taking any step adverse to the interest of the petitioners, till the decision of the petition."
' We fail to see how order of cancellation of result/degree, which was not in existence on 29th of July, 1993, could be passed in presence of the aforesaid order of the High Court. However, since the cancellation order, if any, has not been brought on the record we refrain from making observations in respect thereof.
' In light of the foregoing analysis the appeal is dismissed with costs.