Examination

While the goods were confiscated, an option was given to the importer to redeem the confiscated goods after paying 35% redemption fine as envisaged under SRO. 499(I)/2009 dated 13-06-2009, in addition to the payment of duty and taxes chargeable thereupon

Reference was filed by the Customs Department against the order in favour of the importer passed by the Customs Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') observing that while there was no guilty intention on the part of the respondent / importer, the difference in the sizes of the bicycles was due to the style of measurement of the consignment

Validity

Record revealed that the goods were examined more than once and the contravention made out against the respondent / importer by the Customs Authorities was due to their (Authorities') own style of measurement

But on seeing the measurement style of the respondent and as disclosed by the consigner, there was no difference in the sizes

Since the difference in sizes was between the Authorities and importer, therefore, the Tribunal had categorically observed that the same could not be made the basis of contravention or mis-declaration

Respondent / importer also offered the Customs Authorities to explain the method of measurement but no heed was paid by them in said regard

Record showed that the bicycles were imported in kilograms and not on the basis of measurement, whereas the difference in size was due to measurement of the frames of the bicycles, which was not the correct method of measurement

Had the bicycles been imported on sizes basis then it could have been said that the contention of the applicant / Department might be correct but , in the present case, the frames of bicycles were imported in kilograms and not by virtue of sizes

Customs Authorities, on asking by the Tribunal, also failed to produce any basis (law, notification, SRO et.) for their method of measurement

Since onus in such regard was not discharged, therefore, case of mis-declaration was not proved against the respondent / importer

No interference was made out in findings of the Customs Appellant Tribunal that no discrepancy was found in the description of the goods

Customs reference filed by the Customs Authorities was dismissed, in circumstances.

In case of any dispute regarding genuineness of signatures, thumb impressions, Arts. 59 & 84 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 are enabling provisions of law

Refusal to get comparison of thumb impressions and signatures amounts to negation of justice

Report of fingerprint and handwriting experts are always open to objection by either side.

Contention of the appellant/importer was that the redemption fine and penalty had been imposed only on the apprehension that the importer had deliberately committed mis-declaration of contents of the consignments in order to avoid payment of due amount of leviable duty and taxes

Held, that that there was absolutely no likelihood of escape of leviable duty and taxes on imported consignments of used computers as the same were invariably marked for 100 percent examination

Examination report of such consignments reflected the composition of imported goods accurately, thus making it almost impossible to evade leviable duties and taxes on such imports unless there was some oversight by the Examination Staff of the Collectorate

Such consignments , however, consisted of mixed lot purchased from abroad and it was not possible for the importers to make correct declaration of all the contents of such consignments at the time of declaration before the Department

Any mistake in the declaration was, therefore, not intentional on the part of importers of such goods by any means

Record revealed that previously the Department had released identical goods of other importers, thus discriminatory treatment with the appellant / importer was unfair

Imposition of fine and penalty, in the present case, was too harsh and thus was not applicable as no element of Mens Rea was established against the appellant/importer

Fine and penalty imposed was cancelled/waived

Order-in-Original and Order-in Appeal were set aside

Appeal was allowed, under circumstances.

High Court declined interference in matters pertaining to making of answer sheets by officers of the educational institution who were expert in their filed

High Court could not substitute its findings for that of the persons skilled in their task

Constitutional petition was not maintainable.

High Court declined interference in matters pertaining to marking of answer sheets by officers of colleges and universities who were expert in their field

High Court could not substitute its findings for that of the persons skilled in their task

Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed accordingly.

In matters of admission and examination in educational institutions, the University authorities concerned were the sole judges of the criteria laid down in the prospectus

Courts in such matters desist from interfering as it would create difficulties for the institutions to run their affairs in an appropriate manner according to their rules and regulations.

If portion of statement in chief was not cross-examined, such portion deemed to be admitted by other side.

Petitioner took examination conducted by National Testing Service (NTS) and his grievance was that answer to three questions with examiner were wrong, therefore, he sought correction of his result

Plea raised by authorities was that re-evaluation of answer sheets could not be done under constitutional jurisdiction

Validity

Authorities on representation of petitioner rectified answers of two questions, therefore, possibility of error in answer of third question could not be ruled out

Right of aggrieved person, who was otherwise eligible to participate in competitive recruitment process, could not be denied on technical grounds

Petitioner could not properly appreciate construction of passage available in question paper and opted for an incorrect reply

High Court, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, declined to under-take detailed appraisal or scrutiny of answer sheet of petitioner or answer key of examiner

Result of petitioner as declared by NTS was not interfered with

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Facts of one writ petition were that the petitioners who were granted admission in First year MBBS course in the college, failed in Annual and Supplementary Examination

Petitioner claimed that after obtaining necessary dues, petitioners were promoted to 2nd year MBBS by the college, and that without providing three chances as required by Rules, college authorities were determined to relegate them to Part-I MBBS

Facts of another writ petition were that petitioners who were granted admission in MBBS 1st year appeared in Annual and Supplementary Examination, but failed, however, they were promoted to 3rd year MBBS after obtaining relevant dues

College Authorities, due to failure of the petitioners to pass all the subjects of MBBS Part-I and Part-II (First Professional), decided to revert them

Validity

Petitioners, who were students of 1st year MBBS, could not be relegated on the ground of their failure in certain subjects of Part-I

Statutory bar on the promotion of failed students was confined to from one class to another and not from Part-I to Part-II of the MBBS

Petitioners being students of MBBS Part-II, could not be reverted to MBBS Part-I on the ground of their failure to qualify in certain subjects of Part-I, and would have to be granted three chances for the purpose of passing the failed subjects including Annual Examination

Similarly other petitioners who were promoted to MBBS 3rd year, would also be provided three chances for the purpose; their promotion in 3rd year MBBS being against the provisions of Regln. III(4) of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Regulations, 1998, they could be relegated to MBBS Part-II, until they availed the facility of third chance for the purpose of clearing the failed subjects

Contention of counsel for the petitioners that an Annual Examination, could not be included in their chances, being baseless, was turned down.

As per rules of the University, re-checking would be referred to the examiner, who had already conducted the marking/evaluating of answer book; and in case of his non-availability, the same would be referred to an examiner of integrity from the panel of examiners, subject to approval of Vice-Chancellor

Petitioner had fulfilled the requirements of re-checking and re-evaluating the answer book and authorities had not filed any counter affidavit to rebut the declaration made by the petitioner in his affidavit

Re-checking and re-evaluating was permis­sible under Regulations, which had been refused by the authorized examiner and in such an eventuality, the answer book could be sent to any one of the examiners out of the list filed by the petitioner

Constitu­tional petition was allowed and authorities were directed to refer the answer book in question for re-checking/re-evaluation to any of the examiners mentioned in the list provided by the petitioner subject to the approval of the Vice-Chancellor.

Petitioners had challenged marking of question papers by external examiner on the ground that one of the questions having 15 marks consisted of two parts with an option to attempt either of those parts; petitioners had attempted the first part

Petitioners asserted that right answers attempted by them were crossed and no marks were awarded to them

Rechecking Committee clothed with the powers to re-check, though not authorized to grant marks itself could point out the failures and perversities of the examiners; however, if it was found that the answers were correct and the examiner had wrongly refused to mark the same, the Re-checking Committee could proceed against such a recalcitrant examiner under the rules

Counsel for the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education asserted that he had no objection if case was remanded to the Chairman Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education for expeditious disposal of grievance of the petitioners

High Court remanded the case to Chairman Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education with direction to decide the same within two days from the receipt of the order

High Court further directed that the Chairman while determining whether the answer to the disputed question as attempted by the petitioners were correct or not should be at liberty to have assistance from subject specialist or any other examiner in the relevant subject; however, if it was found that the conduct of the examiner was perverse, then the Chairman should take action against the examiner under the rules.

Petitioners/students were found involved in using unfair means to change their grades, therefore, University authorities suspended them for one semester

Validity

Petitioners were student of respondent university who allegedly managed fraud/cheating in order to get better scoring in their results

Petitioners had allegedly committed an abominable act and were rightly tackled by University authorities

In academic matters University authorities were the best judges to interpret rules and regulations framed by University authorities

Courts were required to avoid to interpret the same unless case of grave injustice was made out, otherwise it would become difficult for Universities to run their affairs

High Court declined to interfere in the decision taken by authorities against petitioners

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Statement of facts made by the officer who prepared report which was exhibited, without producing such officer for cross-examination, could not make the report exhibited admissible in the eye of law.

Petitioner/candidate had contended that because of hostility and grudge of two Professors against him he was failed in one subject

One of said two Professors had stated on oath that though he was Internal Examiner, but paper in question was checked by External Examiner who evaluated the marks of paper in question

Said Professor had further stated that he being the Internal Examiner was competent to review the same marking having the powers of only plus and minus 5 marks, which he even did not do as he was satisfied with the marking made by the External Examiner

Counsel for University authorities referring the comments submitted by the university, had made it clear that applications made by the petitioner to the university in that regard were thoroughly examined and the competent Authorities being satisfied with the correct marking as per rules, rejected the application on three occasions

Present petition, in circumstances, was found mere on misapprehension, especially in the wake of statement made by Internal Examiner who was specifically made a party by the petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Petitioners did not submit admission forms for the 9th class final examination on the last date fixed for it which was extended for private candidates from 13-2-2010 to 26-2-2010 due to strike of the subordinate staff of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education

Petitioners challenged the non-acceptance of their admission forms and non-issuance of roll numbers slips to them

Petitioners did not submit their admission forms along with prescribed fee within the period fixed by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education

Board had the prerogative to fix the last date for submission of admission forms as well as the amount of fee to be charged for a particular examination, which was primarily, a matter of policy

High Court, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, could not take over to the role of policy

Permission granted to petitioners to take examination of 9th class, which was scheduled immediately without verification of their admission forms, could cause personation in addition to creating administrative problems for the Board

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.

Petitioner had passed first two semesters, but for 3rd and 4th semester, his C.P.G.A. being less than two, he failed to qualify both the semesters

Petitioner moved the authorities to permit him to repeat his 3rd and 4th semester which had been declined on the ground that as per amended Rule 2(a) of the Pakistan Engineering Council Regulations, 1985, re-admission could only be granted, if the candidate had 60 marks in his intermediate examination

Validity

Present case was not the one in which some fresh admission was being sought, from the very beginning in first semester to which said Rules should apply

Petitioner already being the student of the Institution wanted to repeat 3rd and 4th semesters

When there was no bar in the Pakistan Engineering Council Regulations, 1985 in that behalf, he must be permitted to do so

Petition was allowed.

Petitioner who appeared in the final examination of B.Sc. Civil Engineering in the year, 2008, had received four show-cause notices with the allegation that he was found involved in managing to change the solved answer books in violation of regulation of the university

Inquiry Committee of the university had cancelled all four papers of the petitioner and was given chance to re-appear in the examination

Petitioner had challenged such cancellation

Record revealed that external examiner had reported that he had received the bundle of answer books without seal and the same were opened

Person who had entered the fictitious number on the detached papers stated that the same was not in his handwriting

Lines drawn in zigzag shape before detaching the papers from the original answer sheets did not correspond with each other which showed that the answer sheets had been changed

University had strictly proceeded in accordance with law and even had made the favourable decision in favour of the petitioner by allowing him to appear in the examination

Constitutional petition was dismissed by High Court.

Petitioner appeared in original examination which was held in winter Session 2005-2006, in which he failed: he repeated first time in Spring 2005-06, in which also he failed and third time he was enrolled for repetition in the Spring Semester 2006-07, but could not appear due to rustication order passed against him, which was subsequently set aside by the Appellate forum

Petitioner only appeared in one paper and the remaining papers were to be taken when the order of rustication was passed against him, whereby he did not remain student of the University and could not appear in the remaining papers of Spring Session 2006-07

Petitioner appeared in Spring 2007-08 but failed

Petitioner could not appear due to the order of rustication in Spring Sessions 2006-07, that could not be considered as the second repetition availed by the petitioner

Second repetition, in circumstances, would be considered when the petitioner appeared in Spring 2007-08 as it was beyond the control of the petitioner due to order of rustication passed by the University and he ceased to be the student of the University

Petitioner, in circumstances, was entitled for another chance in lieu of Spring Session 2006-07 and would be allowed to appear in the next examination to be held by the University on the subject as the last chance.

Petitioner, who was a student of Medical College, was studying in First M.B.,B.S. Part-I, but could not clear her subjects in Annual as well Supplementary Examination in year 2007 and February, 2008

Petitioner was directed by the principal of the college to re-take the class of First year M.B.,B.S. as on her failure in the Part-I M.B.,B.S. Examination, she could not be promoted to second part as per rules and regulations of the college as well as Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962

Validity

If petitioner had failed in the First Professional Class, then she could not be promoted to Class-II Professional nor be allowed to take examination of the higher class

Actually, both Part-I and Part-II were part and parcel of First M.B.,B.S. and did not constitute two different classes

Second part could not be termed as higher class nor Part-I as lower class

Bar contained in the Prospectus of College, rules and regulations of the University of Health Sciences and S.4 of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962, imposed bar in unequivocal terms on the promotion to next higher class i.e. if a student had not cleared all the subjects of First Professional Year Part-I & Part-II, and as such petitioner could not be promoted to second class

Petition was allowed with the direction to the authorities to allow the petitioner to take examination in Part-II of the Ist M.B.,B.S. Professional Examina­tion

Ad interim order passed by the court stood confirmed.

Third monthly examination of 6th semester of the petitioner was scheduled to commence on 27-10-2008 while the parents of the petitioner met a road accident on the. preceding day in which his mother lost her life, while his father sustained serious injuries

Due to said incident, the petitioner could not appear on the stipulated date to take the requisite paper

Petitioner applied to the Institute for arranging examination for him which he missed due to the tragic happening, but his said request was not acceded to

Validity

Held, it was not conceivable for a prudent mind that a student missing his examination due to sudden demise of his parents could be dubbed to have deliberately abstained from appearing in test on the notified dates

Educational institution was meant not only to impart formal education to the students admitted therein, but was alongside expected to facilitate the building up career potentials for the pupils

Rules of discipline/business chalked out for the purpose of carrying out daily chores of Institution, in circumstances, were not to be construed in the strictest possible sense so that a case of total hardship, was also pushed against the wall

Institute was a creature of statute (Institute of Management Sciences Ordinance, 2002), Constitutional petition was admitted and allowed

Institute was required to arrange the requisite re-test of petitioner within stipulated period.

Petitioner was allowed to appear provisionally in the examination, scheduled to be held on 26-2-2008, the result, of which was made subject to decision of the petition

Rule 4 of Chapter IV of the Calendar of University of Punjab 1998, provided that a candidate could be allowed to appear in the subsequent examination, without attending fresh course of lectures provided that candidate had attended prescribed number of lectures and tutorial meetings during the academic year preceding the examination

"Academic year" would mean the total period during which instruction was required for purpose of any examination between the commencement of one examination and commencement of next examination twelve months later

Petitioner, who had appeared in the Supplementary Examination, while he passed his LL.B. Part-I Examination in 2007 Annual, had not completed his "Academic Year" comprising over a period of 12 months

Petitioner, in circumstances, was not eligible to appear and take his LL.B. Part II Supplementary Examination

Petitioner was rightly declined by the authorities to take Supplementary Examination

Result of the petitioner could not be officially declared, in circumstances.

Petitioner had sought direction to the Authority to review the result of examination and award internal marks; or in the alternative a chance could be given to him to reappear in the practical examination

Validity

Petitioner himself had not taken the studies seriously; he failed several times in one paper or the other and could not acquire the knowledge to qualify his examination

Under Rules of the University, the petitioner had availed all the chances and he failed to refer to any law under which the examiner could be compelled to review his previous assessment and award further marks to him

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Petitioner, who was Principal of concerned college sent Admission Forms and Fees of regular candidates for examination and admission fee for all candidates was deposited in the account of Secondary Board

Two parcels of Admission Forms were handed over to Courrier Service on dates 3-2-2005 and 4-2-2005, which reached their destination on 8-2-2005

Principal was served with a notice calling upon him to pay late fee

No dispute was that said two parcels were handed over to Courrier Service on 3-2-2005 and 4-2-2005, however according to the Courrier Service those could not be delivered before 8-2-2005 as according to their written statement, office was found closed

In view of Rule 2.16 of the Calendar of the Board, admission fee was deposited three days before last date of submission of the same and the parcels of the Admission Forms were received within .10 days from said last date

Documents/Admission Forms, in circumstances, would be deemed to have been received in time

Claim of the Board for the late fee, was not tenable and was without lawful authority, in circumstances

Impugned claim of the Board for payment of late fee was declared to be without lawful authority and void.

Authorities had stopped the petitioner to sit in the examination on the ground that she had submitted a tampered result card for getting admission, while the petitioner claimed that said allegation had no basis

Case of the petitioner appeared of self-assertion, which could not be based for judicial order

Petition being not maintainable was dismissed.

Candidate feeling dissatisfied with his result of the examination, sought re-checking of his papers and he also deposited necessary fees for the purpose but re-checking was not allowed on the pretext that according to Rule 19 of the relevant Rules prescribed period for such an application was 40-days for the filing of application for re-checking, whereas according to amended Rule 11 of Chapter-5, the prescribed period was 15 days after the declaration of result

Said twp Rules had provided limitation for entertaining an application for re-checking the papers

Said Rules in ordinary course could not be bypassed; however peculiar circumstances of the case i.e. glaring mistakes in the result issued by the Board for annual examination 2008, would definitely raise serious apprehension in the mind of candidate with regard to his previous result

Candidate immediately moved an application for re-checking of his papers

Authorities were directed to re-check the papers, however, that finding was limited to the extent of present case on account of peculiar circumstances of the case otherwise the rules could not be bypassed in the ordinary course.

Petitioner/candidate after qualifying 6th Semester was promoted to 7th semester, but was detained in 7th semester on account of being unsuccessful in 50% of the courses taken by him

Contention of the petitioner was that as per Regulation 11(iv)(b) of Uniform Semester Rules, (2007), a student who secured C.G.P.A. of 2.00 after having been detained in 7th semester would be promoted to the next semester, but petitioner, despite securing C.G.P.A. of 2.3, had been declared failed

Validity

Prevailing rules for the conduct of examination had provided that a student must obtain minimum C.G.P.A. of 2.00 and pass 50% of the course offered for that semester

Passing 50% of the course, in circumstances was mandatory requirement for promotion to the next semester and obtaining C.G.P.A. 2.00 singly was not enough for promotion-Petitioner, no doubt had secured C.G.P.A. of 2.60, but had not succeeded in passing 50% of the courses

Impugned action against the petitioner having been taken according to rules and regulations, same could not be assailed in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, as dropping of a student from roll of the Department as per regulations, needed strict adherence to keep the standard of education

Petitioner having not succeeded in making out a case of discrimination or unequal treatment, his petition was dismissed.

Candidate was served with a notice by the college, whereby he was stopped from appearing in the Second Professional examination

Validity

College Administration had no authority to restrain candidate from appearing in the Second Professional examination under Rr.13 & 17 of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Rules

Counsel for college administration submitted that as per rules of college a candidate must complete his M.B.,B.S. studies within maximum period of seven years; and in the present case, due to candidate's repeated failure he could not complete his first and second professionals in time so his name was withdrawn from the roll of the college and however offered that candidate might be allowed to appear in the forthcoming examination only subject to furnishing of an undertaking that he would clear the said examination in the first attempt

On the said undertaking candidate was allowed to sit in the examination

College administration, in the meanwhile, filed a petition under S.12(2), C.P.C. on the ground that advocate appearing on behalf of the college had acted unauthorizedly and detrimental to the interest of college and set a wrong precedent for the future which would create serious difficulties for the College administration as an institution

College administration submitted the result in the court according to which the candidate had again failed despite his undertaking

Counsel for the candidate during proceedings, however, made a request to the court that Principal of the College could be summoned to resolve the controversy as the future of a candidate was at stake

Principal appeared in the court and agreed to allow the candidate to appear in the next examination subject to furnishing of his undertaking that he would clear the said examination in the first attempt to show his bona fide and on the basis of his result, it would be decided whether to continue him in the said college for future studies

Candidate was directed to furnish the requisite undertaking to the administration of the college for further studies

Order accordingly.

By implication students can be subjected to examination only from within and not out of the curricula and syllabus prescribed.

Petitioner had referred two cases in which two candidates in the same session with the petitioner, who were also deficient in lectures, were allowed to sit in the examination

General principle of law, though was that every body was supposed to know relevant law and rules applicable to his case, but in the case of students, some relaxation could be granted to some of them

Teachers, at lest were required to intimate the others in the same set of circumstances to seek relief, if it was available under the law

Petitioner was never called upon by the concerned Authorities to make an application for the relief which was being considered for the others

High Court directed that let the petitioner, in circumstances make an application to Departmental Examination Committee where her case would be considered, keeping in view the principle of equality and would be treated as at par with the case of other two candidates

If the petitioner was found to be eligible to the relaxation, some special measures would be taken for her examination

Petitioner, in the meanwhile would continue her study in the Second Semester.

Petitioners who were admitted in the Faculty of LL. M., took examination, but were declared failed on the ground that they could not get 60% marks in one paper each

Contention of petitioners was that under Regulation 15(vi)(a) that candidate should get at least 50% marks in each .paper and as petitioners qualified on the touchstone of the Regulations, were required to be declared as pass

Vice-Chancellor vide order amended the relevant Regulation which was approved by the Syndicate and was notified accordingly

According to said notification existing pass marks and aggregate percentage was revised as 60% pass marks in each paper

Vice-Chancellor no doubt had the power in, emergent cases under S.16(3) of Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan Act 1975, to pass any order called for in the circumstances of the case, but, he was required to refer the matter to Authority concerned which in the ordinary course of system and under the law required to take that action

Action taken by the Vice-Chancellor was an amendment in the existing Regulation

Under 5.33 of Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Act 1975, procedure to amend a Regulation was the same which was required for creation of a Regulation

Process of bringing about the amendment in the Regulation was not followed by the respondents

Notification in question indicated that proposal for impugned/disputed amendment in the Regulation was made by the Vice-Chancellor on the recommendation of the Principal of University Law College, who, in his capacity, figured nowhere to make such a recommendation

Amendment brought in Regulation, 15(vi)(a) whereby pass marks had been changed from 50% to 60% was without any lawful authority and of no legal effect

University was directed to declare the result of the petitioners on the basis of original text of the Regulation.

Candidate who appeared in Intermediate examination failed only in one paper and was declared eligible to re-appear in that paper in supplementary examination

Candidate appeared in supplementary examination accordingly and was declared successful in the relevant paper

Candidate was declared successful in the result card in the-said paper but was shown absent in another whereas in earlier declaration of the result she was declared successful in that subject

According to rules contained in Calendar, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, result of candidate could not be quashed without issuing show-cause notice to the candidate and giving candidate an opportunity of hearing, but in the present case neither opportunity of hearing was afforded to the candidate nor she was served with any showcause notice and all proceedings against candidate were undertaken by Authorities at the back of the candidate

Candidate in circumstances, was condemned unheard

Action of- Authorities whereby candidate was directed to re-appear in English Paper in which she had already. been declared successful, could not be countenanced by any stretch of imagination and was not tenable in law especially when principles of natural justice had been violated by the Authorities

Action of Authorities was declared to be without lawful authority and having no legal effect

Matter would be deemed pending before Authority concerned for decision afresh in accordance with law.

Examination - Change of group - Contention that respondent examinee could not have appeared for improvement of division/marks in examination for a group different from his earlier group-Authorities having allowed examinee to change his group and permitted him to appear at examination and not prevented him from doing so and no explanation given for doing so, some confusion about application of rules to a particular region, held, exists and authorities concerned having contributed to such conduct, case not fit for interference.

University - Examination - Allegations against student of using unfair means - University disqualifying candidate on reports submitted by Invigilator, Superintendent and Examiner without the candidate being ever confronted with such reports or given opportunity to refute those materials - Order passed by University, held, without lawful authority and of no consequence. Maxim: audi alteram partem applied.