' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner, N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology Karachi, has impugned judgment dated 22-2-2000 of a learned Division Bench, High Court of Sindh, passed in Constitutional Petition No,D-42 of 1999 where in the concluded para., the following was held: ' "...No provision of law, rule of resolution has been pointed out whereunder respondent No, 3 could direct the holding of special examination consequently impugned Notices/Letters No .R(Acad)/5(318)/5203 , dated 10-12-1998 and R(Acad)/5(318)/6129, dated 28-12-1998 are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the respondent No,3 Vice-Chancellor to implement the Syndicate decisions passed in their 108th and 110th meetings on 3-6-1998 and 9-12- 1998 respectively.
' The petition stands disposed of alongwith the listed application."
2. The petitioner University has been established under section 3 of N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology Karachi Act, 1977; hereinafter called "the Act", and is providing instructions and research in and advancement and dissemination of knowledge of, Engineering, Technology and such other allied subjects.
3. Forty-six students of the University had filed Constitutional Petition No,D-1493 of 1997 against University seeking declaration that they had passed their examination in B.E. (Civil Engineering)
Final of the University and were entitled to hold and get the degree for the same alongwith marks sheet and provisional certificates. They had also prayed to declare that decision of the University cancelling the examination results in the subject of "Theory of Structure" was without lawful authority and the same should not be implemented. The petition was disposed of on 4-3-1998 in the following terms:-- ' "The contention on the basis of the above formulation is that it is the Syndicate alone which had the power to take action against the petitioners and such being the case the action at the level of the other authorities was unlawful. It is difficult to unreservedly accept the contention because all that Regulation says is that amongst the other powers of the Syndicate the above-referred powers are also included. Such ipso facto does not exclude the powers of the remaining authorities of the University, if there be such powers independently available."
' In pursuance of above order, the matter was placed before Syndicate, which passed the following Resolution No,108.4(c) on 3-6-1998 by majority:- ' "Resolved that since irregularities have been committed by the University Administration, the Examination Results/Degree be restored with back effect."
4. It appears that the Vice-Chancellor of the University was not satisfied with above Resolution and desired its review, as such, the matter was put up in 109th meeting of the Syndicate, which was adjourned due to lack of quorum and then its 110th meeting was held on 19-12-1998, wherein it reaffirmed and ratified the resolution dated 3-6-1998. Thereafter, Registrar of the University issued notices dated 10-12-1998 to the respondents Nos.1 to 7 and others, asking them to appear again in the examination of "Theory of Structure", which was held on 30-12-1998. Out of 64 students, who were required to reappear in the examination, 53 appeared and all of them cleared it, except one.
The respondents Nos.1 to 7, challenged the propriety of the order for reappearing in said one paper through Petition No,42 of 1999, which, as stated earlier, was disposed of in the terms mentioned above.
5. Section 16 of the Act enumerates powers and duties of the Syndicate. The powers mentioned at (s), (u) and (v) of section 16 of the Act are as follows:-
(s) to consider and approve the Regulations proposed by the Academic Council, or frame Regulations after calling for the advice of the Academic Council;
(u) to furnish report on any matter called for by the Senate;
(v) to deal with the matters concerning the University not provided for, in this Act, in any manner it may deem fit.
' Section 18 of the Act speaks about the powers and duties of the Academic Council and subsection (2)(g) of section 18 of the Act is as follows: "(g) to initiate Regulations for consideration and approval of the Syndicate;" .
' Regulation 5 reads as under:--
5. "The dates of the commencement of examinations as well as the last dates for the receipt of .Application forms and fees for such examination shall be notified, in advance by the Controller of Examination.
' Notwithstanding anything contained in other Regulations, the Syndicate shall have power in the case of all examinations held by this University to hold an, additional examination in the same year for special reasons to be recorded."
' Resolution No,SYN-115.6 is as under:- Resolved that:
(a) The members of this Syndicate have physically checked the relevant answer books and noted that the results in question were fraudulently obtained.
' The members also noted that the short courses of two and six weeks in 'Theory of Structure' were undertaken by 54 affected students who were re-examined and 53 out of them declared passed.
All remaining students are recommended to be treated alike.
(b) Action of -Vice-Chancellor in arranging refresher courses and holding examinations of 54 affected students who volunteered to take the courses is ractified.
(c) The judgment of the High Court in Constitutional Petition No,D-42 of 1999 dated 22-2-2000 was noted and should be appealed against without further delay in the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
' Two members Syed Muzaffar Ali Shah and Maulana Amjad Ali Thanvi, however, wished to record their emphatic notes of dissent. Another member Dr. Lqbal A. Panhwar abstained from recording his opinion as he wished to get directives from his Head Office on this issue. Mr. Moinuddin Khan and Engineer Ms. Asfia Aleem who could not attend intimated in writing that they also endorsed the decision to appeal to the Supreme Court.
6. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that it was never the case of the University that the Vice- Chancellor could review decision of the Syndicate, but, in precise term, case was that holding of re- examination purely relates to Academic matter and the Vice-Chancellor is competent to pass appropriate order in this regard. Learned counsel also argued that Academic Council is the Academic Body of the University and Vice-Chancellor is a Principal Executive and Academic Officer of the University, as such, is legally competent to pass order for holding reexamination.
6-A. Above contentions are devoid of any force. As per Regulation 5 quoted above, the Syndicate has power and not the Vice-Chancellor to hold "an additional examination" in the same year. In the case in hand, the examination in which 53 students appeared and 'cleared it, was an additional examination and it could only be ordered by the Syndicate and not by the Vice-Chancellor. It was against said Regulation and there was no legal justification for said examination. Even the Syndicate could not do so without assigning special reasons. The spirit of said Regulation is that, as a rule, there should be only one examination in a year and if an additional examination is required then for this exception, special reasons are to be assigned by the Syndicate. Even otherwise, all those, students who appeared in said examination had cleared it and it indicated that the exercise of holding additional examination was futile.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue that Academic Council, in fact, is the appropriate authority to decide the issue of holding re-examination and Syndicate has nothing to do with it. The Syndicate is the Executive Body of the University and exercises general supervision over the affairs of the University. Although Academic Council is distinct from Syndicate, but it is the latter which considers and approves regulations proposed by the Academic Council or frames regulations after calling for the advice of the Academic Council. The Syndicate even is competent to deal with the matters concerning the University not provided in the Act, in any manner it may deem fit. Even the Academic Council only initiate Regulations for consideration and approval of the Syndicate. Thus, it is evident that the Syndicate can take decision in any matter concerning the University. Of course, while doing so, it will keep in view the powers and duties of the Academic Council as mentioned in section 18 of the Act, Accordingly, we hold that additional examination was of no legal effect, as it was held without the permission of the Syndicate.
' Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued, which in fact is contrary to just above dealt, with contention, that after the Resolution No,SYN/115.6, the Resolution No,SYN 108 4(c) lost its efficacy and also the Resolution No,110, dated 19-12-1998 has become ineffective and it is only Resolution No,SYN/115.6, which holds fields.
8. The Resolution No,108 was passed by the Syndicate and was reaffirmed by the Resolution No,110 .
Its validity, correctness and propriety were upheld by the High. Court in its judgment delivered in Constitutional Petition No,D-42 of 1999. After decision of the High Court, it became final and its validity could not be questioned through Resolution No,115 dated 1st and 8th, April, 2000. In. Fact, it tantamounts to interference in the judgment delivered by the High Court and fell within the scope of contempt of Court. The judgment of the High Court could not be modified/erased out by subsequent Resolution. Clause (a) of Resolution No,115.6, inter alia, contains the words "All remaining students are to be treated alike", this means that the respondents Nos.1 to 7 shall also take short courses of two and six weeks, which they are not required to take as per judgment of the High Court. The Vice-Chancellor was clearly, directed to implement the Syndicate Resolutions Nos.108 and 110. Taking a lenient view, we are not issuing contempt notices to those, who passed the Resolution No,115.6 but warned them to be careful in future.
9. In consequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.