P L D 1999 Lahore 207 (PLP)

Officer authorised by him officer authorised by him may, on receipt of any may, on receipt of any application, in the application, in the prescribed form addressed prescribed form addressed to the Vice‑Chancellor and to the Vice‑Chancellor and accompanied by a fee of accompanied by ,a fee of Rs.400 per subject (A&B) Rs.400 per subject (A&B), satisfy himself that‑‑ satisfy himself that‑ (a) the result of the applicant (a) the result of the applicant has been correctly complied has been correctly complied and declared (this will and declared (this will include checking of answer include checking of answer books, award lists and books, award lists and result sheets); result sheets: include re‑evaluation of the candidates answer book. (b) the answer book is in the (b) Deleted 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 hand writing). 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.

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 (i) 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/excercise 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 8 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 8 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 6f 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 retrospectivity 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 E 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, c 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. M.B.A./S‑286/L Petitions dismissed.