' This judgment will dispose of Writ. Petitions Nos. 21083 of 1997, 22535 of 1997, 23468 of 1997, 23647 of 1997, 25726 of 1997 and 4447 of 1998, as common question of law viz. The availability of power with the respondent-University to conduct re-evaluation of the scripts, is involved. In Writ Petitions Nos.23647 of 1997 and 25726 of 1997 the further question is the applicability of deletion Notification No,111/GH dated 26:4-1997 of the University, to the cases of these petitioners.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of these petitions may be taken from Writ Petition No,21083 of 1997. This petitioner was admitted to D.P.H. Course at College of Community Medicine, Lahore on 29-12-1994. She appeared in D.P.H. Course Annual Examination, 1995 under Roll No,119, held by Punjab University in September, 1996. She cleared all the papers except Paper I in which she obtained 56/100 marks. In terms of Regulation No,3 applicable to the relevant examination, the petitioner had to have 60% of the marks, to pass. In other words she failed by 4 marks, She applied for re-checking of this paper and vide letter dated 14-7-1997, the University informed her that on re- checking no mistake has been found either in the marking or in tabulation of the result. Still dissatisfied the petitioner submitted fresh application to Vice-Chancellor on 30-7-1997 (copy Annexed 'D') for re-evaluation of this paper. This was declined vide Annexure 'E' dated 18-8-1997 on the ground that re-evaluation cannot take place under the existing rule. It is against the refusal of the University, to conduct re-evaluation that this Constitutional petition has been preferred.
However, the prayer made is that not only the application of the petitioner for re-evaluation be allowed but the petitioner "may kindly be awarded 4 marks to succeed in D.P.H. Examination held in the year 1996".
3. In other petitions somewhat similar facts prevail. Each of the petitioner appeared in either B.A. Or LL.B Examination of the University, was dissatisfied with the result declared either as a whole or in one or two papers, applied for reevaluation but because the same was declined, each of the petitioner filed the above petitions.
4. In the report etc./reply filed by the respondent-University under the signatures of Controller of Examination it is claimed that Regulation 23(b) empowering the Vice-Chancellor to order re- evaluation, in his discretion, has been deleted on 7-12-1996 when the Syndicate approved the recommendations of the Academic Council in this regard. Copy of the deleted Regulation has been Annexed as It is also pleaded that this Court in Writ Petition No,17780 of 1997 has already up held the deletion notification.
5. While other learned counsel were also heard but the main arguments in the cases were led by Mr. Muhammad Zain-ul-Abidin, Advocate in Writ Petition No,21083 of 1997. He contended that in spite of deletion/amendment of the relevant Regulation No,23(b) the University still retains the power to re-evaluate the scripts. For this purpose learned counsel relied on section 15(4)(v) of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
6. According to Mr. Muhammad Zain-ul-Abidin, Advocate the above power includes the power of re-evaluation and the University is wrong in its assumption that with the deletion of relevant Regulation it ceases to have any power of re-evaluation. According to his claim, the power which is conferred by the Parent Act/Statute cannot be taken away by subsidiary law such as Regulations.
On these basis Mr. Zain, Advocate has contended that his case is of refusal to exercise jurisdiction, warranting mandamus from this Court.
7. The other learned counsel have adopted the above argument. Mr. Zafarullah, Advocate has further submitted that the deletion itself is wrong because the reason given by the University is a reason pertaining to policy/practical difficulty and on the basis of policy, therefore, the University cannot take away beneficial legislation. He also urged that right once conferred cannot be withdrawn. For this purpose he relied on PLD 1970 SC 453 and PLD 1963 SC 35.
8. Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan, Advocate appearing for some of the petitioners urged that in the case of his clients the deletion notification is sought to be given retrospective effect. He pointed out that in case of his petitioner the examinations were held in July, 1996 while the amendment/deletion was made on 7-12-1996 and was given effect to in April/May, 1997. He argued that even though the result of the examination was declared on 6-5-1997 but it is the Regulation/Law prevailing at the time of commencement of examination, that will apply. In his submissions as in July, 1996, his petitioner had a right to apply for re-evaluation, therefore, the notification dated 26-4-1997 cannot take away that right because it cannot apply with retrospective effect. Reliance has been placed inter alia on Hashwani Hotels Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1997 SC 315 and Muhammad Suleman v. Abdul Ghani PLD 1978 SC 190.
9. On behalf of University, Mr. Muhammad Raza Farooq, Advocate has refuted the contention raised. He asserts that no student has a vested right to seek re-evaluation. According to him, the Vice-Chancellor did not derive the power of re-evaluation from section 15(4)(v) of the Act as that provision deals with making arrangements for the scrutiny of papers, marks and results and not for re-evaluation. He has explained that the words scrutiny has not been defined in the Act. However, there are Regulations dealing with the appointment, duties and remuneration of scrutinizers, appearing at 506 of the University Calendar, Vol. I, 1990. By referring to the dictionary meaning of the expression "evaluate" and "scrutinise" at pages 404 and 1044 respectively, he has attempted to highlight that the two concepts are entirely different. He has also, refuted the argument of retrospectively by submitting that a claim for re-evaluation only arises after declaration of result and it is the law prevailing on that date, and not on date of holding of examination that will decide the question. He states that the result of the two petitioners represented by Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan, Advocate were declared on 6-5-1997 while the deletion had already taken place on 7-12-1996. He, therefore, submitted that there is no question of the notification applying retrospectively.
10. For facility of reference the relevant provisions of the Act (section 15(4)(v)) as well as the Regulation No,23(b) are reproduced:-- "Section 15(4). The Vice-Chancellor shall also have the powers---
(v) to make such arrangements for the scrutiny of papers, marks and results as he may consider necessary;
(vii) . '' ""
(viii)...
(ix) ...
' Regulation No,23. The Vice-Chancellor or an officer authorised by him, on receipt of an application in the prescribed form addressed to the Vice-Chancellor and accompanied by a fee of Rs,100 per subject, (A&B), satisfy himself that: EXISTING REGULATION PROPOSED/AMENDED REGULATION
23. The Vice-Chancellor or an Officer authorised by him may, on receipt of any application, in the prescribed form addressed to the Vice-Chancellor and accompanied by a fee of Rs,400 per subject (A&B) satisfy himself that--23. The Vice-Chancellor or an officer authorised by him may, on receipt of any application, in the prescribed form addressed to the Vice-Chancellor and accompanied by .a fee of Rs,400 per subject (A&B), satisfy himself that--
(a) the result of the applicant has been correctly complied and declared (this will include checking of answer-books, award lists and result sheets);(a), the result of the applicant has been correctly complied and declared (this will include checking of answer-books, award lists and result sheets: Provided that it will not include re-evaluation of the candidates answer book.
(b) the answer book is in the handwriting of the candidate himself. (In exceptional cases, the Vice-Chancellor may in his discretion, allow the answer book to be shown to the candidate or his guardian for verification of handwriting). This, however, shall not fetter the discretion of the Vice-Chancellor to get a particular answer book or answer books re- examined in exceptional cases where there is a strong ground to believe that the same have not been justly evaluated.(b) Deleted.
11. An examination of section 15, shows that the Vice-Chancellor is the Principal Executive and Academic Officer of the University. He has to ensure that the provisions of Act, the statutes, the regulations and the rules are faithfully observed in order to promote teaching, research, publication, administration and general efficiency and the good order of the University. For this purpose he will have all powers necessary including administrative control over all officers, teachers and other employees of the University. He has to preside at the meetings of the Authorities of which he is the Chairman and is also entitled to attend and preside at any meeting of any other Authority of body of the University. Subsection (4) also enables the Vice-Chancellor to do things mentioned in clauses such to (ix). Clause (v) confers the powers on the. Vice-Chancellor to make such arrangements for the scrutiny of papers, marks and results as he may consider necessary. It will be seen that this is an enabling provision authorising the Vice-Chancellor to make arrangements for the scrutiny of papers, marks and result as he may consider necessary.
12. Mr. Raza Farooq, Advocate is correct in submitting that scrutiny is a different concept/exercise and is quite distinguishable from "evaluation". As contained in Concise Oxford Dictionary, New Edition scrutiny means a critical gaze, a close investigation or examination of the details. While word "evaluate" means assess and appraise find or state the number or amount of. These two expressions have not been defined either in the Act or in the statutes/regulations/rules of University. One will, therefore, have to go by the ordinary dictionary meaning. In terms of section 14(4)(v), Vice-Chancellor has the power to make arrangements for the scrutiny of papers etc. Such arrangements can be found in Chapter VI headed "Rules regarding appointment and duties of and payment of scrutineers" appeared at page 507 of the Calendar, 1990, Vol. I. The Chapter contains as many as 30 Rules, laying down the manner of appointment, the duties and remuneration of the etc. Of the scrutineer. This further confirms the distinction between scrutiny and evaluate. In none of the 30 odd Rules a scrutineer can assess and appraise the scripts. In this view there is considerable weight in the argument of Mr. Raza Farooq, Advocate that section 15(4)(v) has nothing to do with the evaluation of the scripts. The argument, therefore, that the power of evaluation has been conferred by the Act, is not correct. At least section 15(4)(v) does not do so. Neither Mr. Zain, Advocate nor any other learned counsel for the petitioner has pinpointed any other provision of the Act.
Such a power Of evaluation/re-evaluation was contained in Regulation No,23, Chapter VII entitled Conduct of Examination at page 510 of the above Calendar. AS would be seen from the comparative reading of the provisions and amended regulations, the power of the Vice-Chancellor to get a particular answer book or answer books examined in exceptional cases, has been deleted.
The deletion was done on 7-12-1996 and would be applicable to all results declared after 7-12-1996.
If the competent Authority under the Act has amended the Regulations, for whatever reasons of policy and practical application, this Court can hardly sit over the wisdom of the Authority.
14. The argument of Mr. Zafarullah, Advocate that an amendment on the strength of policy and past misuse of the power or practical difficulty faced by the University should be struck down, has to be rejected. All that this Court is concerned with under Article 199 of the Constitution is to see that the Regulation is legally made. It cannot be struck down on the ground of inappropriateness or inexpediency, unless it is shown that such inappropriateness or inexpediency is in with some basic principle of law or some statutory provision.
15. The apprehension that in the absence of any power with the University to order re-evaluation cases of grave injustice will go unredressed, has no basis. In case of collective wrong the Syndicate can always redress the situation. Further, as laid down in well-known case of Mst. Salma Afroze PLD 1992 SC 263, the situation can always be redressed under the inherent power of the University, as explained in PLD 1975 SC 331. The relevant portion from the judgment of Mst. Salma Afroze is instructive and is reproduced:-- "It is conceded by the learned counsel for the parties that the Calendar of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore 1986-Revised Edition, contains so such provisions for re-evaluation of the answer-books as was ordered by the High Court. In the absence of any statutory provision, we are left with the residual law laid down by this Court in the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and others PLD 1975 SC 331 where every authority, every Tribunal and every Court has been authorised to undo fraud, perversity and a manifest abuse of its authority affecting its jurisdiction. If There was criminal design or a fraud perpetuated on the candidates or a manifest case of victimisation by the examiners, then this .Principle of undoing the wrong was available both to the Board as well as to the Court provided the requisite procedure was adopted and the factual foundation was well-established."
16. I now proceed to examine the argument of retrospectively as canvassed by Mr. Abdul Majeed Khan, Advocate. It is settled law that a Notification does not have retrospective effect. The amended notification in this case was enforced on 7-12-1996 while Mr. Majeed's client appeared in the examination held in July, 1996, the result of which was declared on 6-5-1997. It is in these circumstances, that University has declined re-evaluation on the ground that it has no power. It is not correct to say that right to seek re-evaluation is a right in strict juristic sense. No such claim has been specifically given to an examinee recognised in the University Act or any other statutory provision. One has to, therefore, fall back of the general principles. However, assuming that an examinee, in a given situation can ask for re-evaluation such a claim can only arise at the time of declaration of result and not when the examination is held. I tend to agree with Mr. Raza Farooq, Advocate on this question. In somewhat similar circumstances, in Miss Sultana Khokhar etc. v. The University of the Punjab PLD 1962 SC 35 it was held that candidates have no vested right that they must be examined in accordance necessarily with provision of a statute, Ordinance or Regulation which was prevalent at time of their embarking upon studies of their respective courses. By analogy, in this case, petitioner cannot be said to have a vested right that the result be determined in accordance with the Regulations in force in July, 1996.
17. In the case of the client of Mr. Majeed Khan, Advocate the result was declared on 6-5-1997 and any right to seek re-evaluation arose on that day. Undisputedly the amended Regulation No,23 was in force on 6-5-1997. The amendment had taken away the power of Vice-Chancellor to order re- evaluation. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that in his case the Notification has been applied retrospectively.
18. For all the above reasons, all these petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.