1994 PLP 1204 (MLD)

It is proposed to dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.15775 of 1993, 15777 of 1993 and 16861 of 1993 through this judgment as common question of law and facts are involved. The petitioners appeared in the Mathematics examination. It was detected that they have attached many continuation sheets with their answer books while large number of inner pages in the answer books were left blank. They were called upon to submit their explanations and to show cause within 10 days why they 'should not be disqualified under Regulations Nos.13 and

14. The petitioner's submitted the reply to their show-cause notices. The Disciplinary Committee heard them and held them guilty of adopting unfair means in the examination and proceeded to disqualify them for one year under Regulation No.13. This order was conveyed to the petitioners and they proceeded to challenge the same through these Constitutional petitions. The respondents were directed to submit report and parawise comments. The order has been complied with.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their petitions argued that no case is made out against the petitioners. It is added that there was absolutely no evidence and the respondents have proceeded on mere guesswork to punish the petitioners. The arguments are concluded with the submission that the rules of natural justice have been violated.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection to the effect that no writ petition is competent against the exercise of jurisdiction by the respondents, which is in the nature of paternal rights and especially in the absence of allegations of mala fide. The learned counsel, in this behalf, has referred to cases reported as The University of Dacca through its Vice-Chancellor and another v. Zakir Ahmed PLD 1965 SC 90, Akhtar Ali v. The University of the Punjab 1979 SCMR 549, Shaukat Ali v. The Controller of Examinations, University of the Punjab, Lahore and another 1981 SCMR 364 Ghulam Dastgir v. Muhammad Zakria Javed and others 1987 SCMR 796 Ahmad and 3 others v. Vice-Chancellor, University of Engineering and Technology and another PLD 1981 SC 464, Rahat Siddiqui v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another 1977 SCMR 213, Masood pervaiz v. The Disciplinary Committee, University of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others 1982 SCMR 1084, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha and another v. Muhammad Rafique PLD 1991 SC 231 and Disciplinary Committee of the University of the Punjab, Lahore and another v. Malik Abdul Majid 1984 SCMR 1302.

4. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record including answer books. In view of the order proposed, I need not to discuss the merits of the points raised on either side. The Disciplinary Committee proceeded in a very casual manner. It did not take into consideration the record pertaining to issuance of continuation sheets to the candidates. No effort, whatsoever, was made to rind out how these means were adopted by large number of students. It has also not cared to examine the handwriting in which the answer books and continuation sheets were written. This is not all. Even the initials of Superintendent appearing on the continuation sheets used by Muhammad Ahsan and Syed Nadim Hassan Kazmi were not got confirmed or approved by sending for the Superintendent of the Centre.

5. The respondents should bear in mind that they deal with the valuable rights of the candidates, therefore, they should take into consideration all the relevant material and then come to a conclusion. I am not touching the merits of the plea raised by either of the parties, lest it should prejudice the case of either of them. The impugned orders in these Constitutional petitions cannot be maintained on the simple ground that the Committee has not taken into consideration all the relevant material before holding the petitioners guilty and disqualifying them for one year.

6. The upshot of this discussion is that these writ petitions are allowed, the impugned orders dated 6-11-1993 and 7-11-1993 respectively are set aside. The result is that the proceedings shall be deemed pending before the Disciplinary Committee, which is directed to conclude the same de novo expeditiously in any case by 31-1-1994. No order as to costs. H.B.T./N-216/L Petition allowed.