P L D 1992 Lahore 408 (PLP)

This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been riled by Tauqeer Akhtar Malik, Muhammad Mubashir Rabbani and Afzal Mahmood, who are students of M. ' Sc. (Mathematics) Part 11 of Government Forman Christian College, Lahore. They appeared in the 1st Annual Examination held by the University of the Punjab in M. Sc. Mathematical Statistics Part 11 in Center No.5 in Punjab University, Physics Department, on 29th of October, 1991. It appears that some of the students undertaking the examination started raising certain objections and slogans and staged a walk ‑out. ' According to the case of the petitioners, though they had refused to walk but or to boycott the paper but they were forced to do so by the other candidates under the threat of bodily harm.

2. It appears that the petitioners brought these facts to the notice of the University of the Punjab by filing an application which was duly recommended by the Centre Superintendent and forwarded for sympathetic consideration by the Principal, Government F. C. College, Lahore, to the vice-chancellor, University of the Punjab, Lahore, and requested ,that they be re‑examined in the paper as has been done in many other cases. As the petitioners did not receive any reply from the Vice Chancellor, they have filed this Constitutional petition, inter alia, with the following prayer:‑‑ "(a) That respondents shall act in accordance with law and their conventional practice to accept the request of the petitioners for holding of re‑examination in Mathematics Statistics Paper‑11 First Annual 1990. (b) That the respondents should consider the petitioners as regular students and consider re‑examination so that the petitioners may not incur any loss, the result of said paper be not declared in order that the petitioners be on equal footing with the other candidates of the same year i.e. 1st Annual 1990."

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this petition has contended that the petitioners for no fault of theirs were not allowed examination of the paper in question on account of the law and order situation created by the other students and the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for the same. It is emphasized that it was the responsibility of the respondents to ensure by making suitable arrangements that examinations are conducted in an orderly and disciplined manner but on account of the failure of the respondents to ensure maintenance of law and order, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer. The learned counsel has referred to three 'notifications issued by the respondents, copies whereof have been annexed to this petition as Annexures 'B', 'C' and 'D' to show that in similar matters, the respondents (sic) and on refusal to do so, the petitioners are being unfairly discriminated against.

4. Chaudhry Muhammad Farooq, the learned Legal Advisor of the Punjab University, has very frankly conceded that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, he had recommended to the University of the Punjab that the petitioners should be re‑examined as they had been deprived of their right to take the examination for no fault of theirs but on the recommendation of the Board of Studies, the Vice Chancellor has refused this request of the petitioners in the interest of discipline.

5. There is no dispute as regards the factual ' aspect. In the application filed by the petitioners, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexures 'A', it was ' categorically stated by the petitioners that despite their protest,. they were forced to leave the examination Centre on account of the 14w and order situation created by the. Other students, who had forcibly snatched the answer books from them. This application was not only recommended by the Principal of Government F. C. College, Lahore, but also bears a certificate by the Centre Superintendent to the effect that the facts stated in the application were correct. That being so, it stands established on the record and is not even disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners were neither party to the boycott nor of the walk‑out but on the other hand had tried their best to resist it but were prevented by force from doing so. On no rational principle can, therefore, the petitioners be penalized.

6. There is also considerable merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are being unfairly discriminated against. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the respondents that in similar matters the respondents have been holding special examination to allow the students to re‑appear. This fact is even otherwise borne out from the notifications dated 26th of January, 1992, 29th February, 1992 and 27th of February, 1992, copies of which have been annexed to this petition as Annexures 'B', 'C' and 'D' respectively. In the present case no reason from departing from this practice has been given except that the request was refused in the interest of discipline. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners have been guilty of or have committed any act of indiscipline. On the other hand, the contents of the application filed by them before the vice-chancellor, which contains an averment to the effect that the petitioners resisted the call for boycott and wanted to take examination but were prevented from doing so by other students have been certified to be correct by the Central Superintendent. It is, therefore, not understandable as to how the interest of discipline would suffer if the petitioners are allowed to re‑appear in the paper in question. Although to maintain discipline in an educational institution is of highest priority and importance but the rights of those who are, in no way, responsible for any indiscipline cannot be sacrificed at the altar of expedience.

7. It is well‑settled that even in discretionary matters, the action taken I must fulfil the test of reasonableness. If any authority is needed, reference may be made to Federation of Pakistan and others v. Ch. Muhammad Aslam and others (1986 SCMR 916) and the judgment of this Court in Rai Mazhar Iqba and another v. The University of the Punjab, Lahore through vice-chancellor and 2 others (1992 CLC 1158). Although it was discretion with the respondent to hold or not to hold the examination but that discretion has to be exercised in fair, just, proper and rational manner. The observations of the Supreme Court in Aman Ullah Khan and others v. The Federal Government of Pakistan through secretary , Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others (PLD 1990 SC 1092), Chairman, regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi v. Pakistan Mutual Insurance Company Limited, Rawalpindi (PLD 1991 SC 14), and Muhammad lqbal Khkhar and 3 others v. Government of the Punjab through the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 1991 SC 35), are instructive. It, may be appreciated that on account of the refusal of the respondents to the petitioners to re‑appear in the examination. the future career of the petitioners may be seriously prejudiced anti jeopardized. As a result of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed with no order as to costs and the respondents are directed to re‑examine the petitioners in the paper in question. AA./T‑82/1 Petition accepted