Calendar of the University of the Punjab

Prizes, medals and scholarships-Principle-Grievance of petitioner was that she had secured more marks than respondent, therefore, she was entitled to prize, medal and scholarship instead of the respondent-Validity-Respondent sat for original examination while petitioner sat for special examination which was held 8 months later, on the basis of different question papers

Situation of petitioner and respondent could not be equated nor could they be treated a like on the same footing

Petitioner had an undue advantage over respondent because she had eight additional months to prepare for paper in question and by sitting in examination eight months later, she could have mastered the subject more than the petitioner who sat for the examination eight months earlier, therefore, they could not be treated at par

Rules and regulations of the University were quite clear and do not support the case of petitioner-Result of respondent was declared earlier and by the time result of petitioner was declared, respondent had already been declared as top student, had received her medal/recognition and degree was already issued in her favour

No reason existed to take benefits away from respondent at belated stage on the grounds which were not legally sustainable

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioners, private candidates for B.Ed. examination, contended that they were required by the university to submit their original C. T certificates for appearance in the said examination whereas regular candidates were exempted from the said condition; and that the categorization of candidates in that manner amounted to discrimination and was violative of Arts.4, 8 and 25 of the Constitution

Validity

Regular candidates were not required to submit C.T certificates as they had completed one academic year of teacher training at College of Education affiliated with the university

Petitioners/private candidates were required to submit C. T certificates to ensure that they, like regular candidates, had also completed at least one year of teacher training required for passing the C.T. examination

Classification of regular and private candidates in two categories, therefore, was not discrimination but was well in line with the principles of reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia

Consti­tutional petition was dismissed for being devoid of any merits.

Appearance of petitioner in two examinations i.e. LL.B., Part. III, First Annual Examination, 2006 and M.A. Political Science Part. I, First Annual Examination, 2006

Petitioner was issued show-cause notice who, in response to the said notice, appeared before the Disciplinary Committee and himself requested to quash the result of M.A. Political Science Part. I and retain the result of Part. III, First Examination, 2006

Contention of the petitioner that the University authorities had no power to cancel or quash the result of M.A. Political Science was not tenable in the light of Regulation 3 of Ch. VII, of Vol. I of Calendar of the University of the Punjab Lahore

Candidate who was permitted to take a degree examination of the University was not permitted to take another degree examination in the same year

Petitioner was afforded proper opportunity of being heard by the Disciplinary Committee and on his-request the result of M.A. Political Science Part.I, First Annual Examination, 2006 was quashed according to the Regulation

Constitutional petition of the petitioner against said action of the University was dismissed by High Court in circumstances.

Where prescribed chances were not availed, then there would be no scope for granting additional chance to such a candidate

Candidate had rightly been declined fifth chance in circumstances.

Appearance of petitioner in LL.B., Part-III Supplementary Examination, 2003 in full subjects under interim orders of the High Court passed in Constitutional petition

Refusal of University to announce result of petitioner

Validity

Petitioner was not entitled to appear in LL.B. Part-III Annual Examination to be held in August, 2003 as he had not passed LL.B. Part-II Examination, which was announced on 28-2-2004

Interim orders of High Court were subject to result of Constitutional petition

High Court dismissed Constitutional petition for having no merits.

When a candidate takes the examination either in all the subjects at one time or having appeared and failed in a part of the examination, reappears in the subjects in which he has not passed, he will be entitled to five grace marks but he will be granted this concession only once in this examination

Expression "this examination" pertains to the last examination taken by the candidates and not to the .previous examination

Candidates in the present case, had reappeared in the subjects in which they had not passed and could claim five grace marks in the supplementary examination only and not the earlier Annual Examination

Petitioners had appeared twice in Part-I of First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination and they had failed by a margin of one or two marks in each subject

Petitioners had also taken the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Part II Examination under the direction of High Court, at their own risk

Petitioners availed less than 5 grace marks in First Annual Examination and claimed balance grace marks out of 5 marks in Second Annual Examination

Plea raised by the petitioners was that under Part-X of Calendar of the University of Punjab, they were entitled to five grace marks in toto

Validity

Petitioners could be granted concession only once, which they had availed in the First Annual Examination

High Court in such-like matters could exercise parental jurisdiction

Petitioners had not availed the entire concession because of the restriction contained in Regulations

Harshness of the statute could be removed by the framers of the law

Syndicate and Academic Council had ample powers under Ss.27(xi) & 31 of University of Health Sciences, Lahore Ordinance, 2002, to relax the rules in exercise of parental jurisdiction in order to remove hardships to which not only the petitioners but their parents would also be exposed

High Court expected that the Vice-Chancellor of the University would place the representations of the petitioners before the appropriate authority for sympathetic consideration

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Result of candidate declared after three years as later on for want of decision as to her eligibility to appear in B.A. Examination

Validity

Result of a candidate could be cancelled within three years from date of its declaration

Petitioner's result had been declared as later on and deferred for want of decision

Proviso to R.22 of Calendar of the, University of Punjab, Vo1.II would not apply to petitioners case

Petitioner could produce evidence before Equivalence Committee to prove that she had passed Intermediate Examination

High Court dismissed Constitutional petition.

Procedure adopted by such Committee/Tribunal neither judicial nor a quasi-judicial but parental and the decision of such forums was nevertheless not sacrosanct if it was unfair or arbitrary

Opportunity of being heard to the candidate

Principles

Authorities, in the present case, had taken utmost care to ensure that no miscarriage of justice was occasioned and maximum possible opportunity of defence was afforded to the candidate which in fact was duly availed of

Candidate, in the face of overwhelming incriminating material available with the University, in circumstances, was not condemned unheard in violation of maxim "audi alteram partem" and had failed to make out a strong case for grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Calendar of the University of the Punjab, Vol.II, Chap.I, Regln.4 [as adopted by Baha-ud-Din-Zakariya University in 1975]

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Educational institution

Examination

Grace marks, grant of

Petitioner, student of Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University, took examination of B. Sc. in parts and failed for 3 marks in one paper

Contention was that examinee was entitled to 5 grace marks under amended Regln. 4

Validity

Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University had not adopted amendment made in the Regin. 4 but had only adopted Regln. 4 by which no such concession was available to the candidates

Examinee could take benefit of Regln. 4 [as adopted] but could not take benefit of amendment made therein by Punjab University as having not been adopted by Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University

Examinee's case being not considered by the amended Regln. No.4, the petition was dismissed.

Appellants submitted admission forms for M.A., Part II Physical Education Examination, which were subsequently withdrawn by the Principal of the College on account of shortage of attendance and they were advised to attend special classes

Appellants filed Constitutional petition, but suppressed the fact of advice of the Principal to attend special classes

High Court dismissed the Constitutional petition for having failed to show their attendance up to prescribed limit and not approaching the Court with clean hands

Validity

No rule and regulation of College or University were violated by taking action against appellants and they had clearly concealed material fact in Constitutional petition

No application for redressal of their grievance was made before Vice-Chancellor of the University, even though appellants were well within their rights to approach him

High Court was justified not to exercise discretion in their favour in circumstances

Intra-Court appeal filed by appellants had no merits, but it was disposed of with directions to the Vice-Chancellor of the University to redress grievance of appellants on their application, if made any, strictly in accordance with law under parental jurisdiction keeping in view hardships of the appellants under hardship regulations.

Candidate had passed M.A. (English) Part I and Part -II, individually but there was shortage of four marks in the aggregate

High Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, directed the University to place the case of the candidate before the Board of Examiners for decision in accordance with law

Contention of the University was that the matter of grace marks was to be dealt with exclusively by the University Authorities and not by, the Board of Examiners

Validity

Matter relating to the educational career of the candidate should be dealt with by the Board of Examiners in preference to the Executive Authority of the University

Board of Examiners was independent body which was established and controlled by the University of the Punjab, therefore, there could be no legitimate objection to the entrustment of the matter to the Board.

University officials refused to extend benefit of Regln.37 of Calendar of the University of the Punjab without any decision of Board of Examiners

Validity

Matter of grace marks could only be decided by the Board of Examiners and not any other functionary from the University

Refusal of grace marks by the University officials was without lawful authority and of no legal effect

High Court directed the University to place the case of the candidate before Board of Examiners who would proceed to decide the claim in accordance with law

Petition was allowed accordingly.

Question as to whether disciplinary Committee was properly constituted and while rendering its decision quorum was not complete, being a mixed question of law and fact could not, ordinarily, be allowed to be agitated for the first time at leave granting stage in Supreme Court.

Respondent's claim that some pages of his answer book were missing and that he be awarded average marks was not accepted

Respondent's Constitutional petition succeeded and petitioner (University) was directed to award him average marks

Validity

First proviso to Regln.6, Calendar of University of Punjab would take care of situation where answer book received by examiner was lost before or after evaluation so as to entitle candidate for award of average marks obtained by him in other papers

Respondent's case was fully covered for six pages of his answer book were found missing

Respondent, having secured more than 60 per cent. marks in other two papers, was entitled to 61 marks in paper of general surgery

High Court, while directing petitioner to award average marks to respondent, thus, committed no error in interpreting Regln. 6, Calendar of University of Punjab

Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.

Candidate who in his last chance of appearing in B.A. Examination and failing only by one mark in paper of English, had requested for grant of one mark to save his career from being ruined

Validity

Candidate having obtained good marks in all other papers, if one grace mark would be given to candidate in one paper, that could be reduced from any other paper and in that manner concession given to candidate would not change total marks obtained by candidate in examination

Authority under S.16(4)(v) of Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University Act, 1975 was empowered to make arrangement for scrutiny of papers, marks and results as it would consider necessary

Authority which had parental jurisdiction, being empowered to pass any order, should lean towards welfare of students keeping the discipline and standard intact, without being harsh and without showing any discrimination

Case of candidate was that Authority should have exercised power to remove harshness of candidate who had earned good marks in all other papers

Authority was directed to exercise its power under the Regulations in order to promote teaching, research, publication, administration and general efficiency and good order of University.

University declined examinee's such request whereupon he approached High Court which directed University to give him average marks in relevant paper

Validity

Leave to appeal was granted to consider that if answer book received by Examiner was lost before or after evaluation, average marks obtained by examinee in other papers in which he had appeared, would be awarded to him in said paper; where, however, examinee's paper was lost after having been received by Superintendent of Examination Centre or by one of his Assistants, and if he had passed in all other subjects of examination, he would be required to appear in that one paper which was lost

Replacement of answer book and destruction of extra-sheets did happen in respondent's office where petitioner could have no control

Rules and Regulations of the University were to be given effect strictly and while doing so, Rules capable to bring reasonable interpretation favourable to the candidate must be preferred

Petitioner had been subjected to gross abuse of process of law and authority

Result card issued to petitioner in arbitrary manner on basis of replaced answer book and destruction of extra-sheets was without lawful authority and of no legal effect

Respondent was directed to redress grievance of petitioner by giving average marks in specified paper as well and declare him as having passed the examination in question in the relevant subject by obtaining average marks in that paper.

Three situations envisaged by cls. (a), (b) & (c) of proviso to Regln.5(1) of Calendar of the University of the Punjab were independent of each other

Grace marks. under cl.(a) of the proviso would be given to candidate who had failed in one paper. and cl.(c) of the proviso, would be attracted in a situation where candidate had failed in more than one paper while cl. (b) of proviso would cater for the situation where candidate had failed in aggregate by margin of not more than 5 marks

Petitioner having failed in one paper, his case was relatable to cl.(a) of proviso to Regln.5(1); whereby addition of 5 marks in specific paper would bring his marks up to the level of pass marks

While calculating ;grand total, grace marks would be added therein

Grant of grace marks under cl.(a) of proviso to, Regln.5 was independent and not conditional

Candidate was, thus, entitled to award of 5 grace marks and addition of such marks would enable him to pass in the paper in which he had tailed by margin of 5 marks

Grace marks awarded to candidate, when counted in his grand total, would enable him to pass the LL.B. Examination. Part I.

Board of Examiners was empowered to consider case of those candidates who were on border line in terms of Regln. 37, Calendar of the University of the Punjab

Candidate having failed just for want of one mark and having already availed her last chance, High Court directed that case of such candidate be placed before Board of Examiners for sympathetic consideration for its decision in accordance with law and rules.

Regulation 4 of Calendar of the University of the Punjab (19681969), VOI.II, envisaged three situations whereby grace marks would be awarded

Under Cl. (a) of first proviso of said Regln. 4 five grace marks would be given to candidate who had failed in one paper while Cl. (c) would be attracted in a situation where candidate had failed in more than one paper; Cl.(b) of the proviso would cater for situation where candidate had failed in aggregate by margin of 5 marks; third proviso, however, had controlled grant of said concession by making it very clear that grace marks would not be awarded to any candidate who had appeared in examination in parts

Grant of grace marks, therefore, would not be applicable to any candidate who had appeared in examination in parts

Examination of subjects in which grace marks were claimed by petitioners, was taken by them in supplementary chance, and thus case of petitioners was hit by third proviso rendering them disentitled to any grace marks in circumstances.

Student of Physiotherapy was awarded 44 marks in viva voce/practical of Final Examination of B.Sc. Physiotherapy and was declared failed in the whole examination just by getting one mark less than required in viva voce examination

Validity

Student sought direction against University that he be re-examined by another examiner and thereafter declaration of his result in the light of re-examination be made

Entitlement

Where Court was satisfied that marks awarded to student in viva voce/practical examination prima facie on the face of record appear to suffer from lack of bona fide and were not in consonance with the position which such student had obtained in written papers, and that the same suffered from arbitrariness, Court can intervene to do justice and order re-evaluation of marks awarded to student in viva voce examination in the same manner as same can be done in relation to marks awarded in written paper as permissible under University Calendar

Serious allegations having been made against Principal who was one of examiners in viva voce and the fact that after inquiry he was removed by Chairman, Medical Board of Studies as Internal Examiner and that marks awarded to student in viva voce examination were not in consonance with the position which he had obtained in written papers; and he was made to fail by only one mark would furnish strong evidence to hold that on the face of record there appeared to be mistake in judgment of examiners as regards award of marks on viva voce examination

Award of marks in said examination was directed to be re-evaluated by holding viva voce examination afresh by a set of examiners other than those who had already examined petitioner and thereafter result of student be declared.

Examinee's claim that he was entitled to 60 per cent average marks in accordance with Regln.6 of the University Regulations was not warranted for the reason that Answer Books of concerned papers were received by the University duly marked by the Examiner, alongwith the award list prepared by the Examiner

Result sheet was prepared on basis of such award list and thereafter, final result was prepared and announced

Regulation 6, therefore, would not apply in such a situation

Answer Books were not lost until the time -result was prepared by the University

Original award list was shown to Court wherein marks obtained by examinee were entered against each subject/paper

In presence of original award list; which was accepted by examinee to the extent of specified paper (wherein examinee had obtained 84 out of 100 marks) contention of examinee for award of 60 per cent average marks in other Paper (wherein he had got 33 marks out of 100) had lost its weight

Examinee could riot be allowed to pick and choose in such a manner

Examinee's result having been declared on the basis of original award list, he was not entitled to claim average of 60 per cent. marks in one specified paper in terms of Regln. 6 of Calendar of the University which was also not applicable in circumstances of his case.

Petitioner, a University employee, after many years of service with University applied for change of his date of birth, which was corrected by Board of Secondary Education and duly incorporated In duplicate, Matriculation Certificate issued by the Board

University, however, refused to change date of birth of the said employee for the reason that the petitioner ought to have been applied for change of his date of birth within two years after joining service in University as provided in the Punjab Financial Rule adopted by the Punjab University relating to terms and conditions of service of the Calendar of the University of the Punjab, 1990, para. 1, CI.(f)

Expression "terms not expressly defined in these statutes shall bear the sank interpretation as they bear in the Civil Service Rules" as given in para, Cl.(f) of Calendar of the University of the Punjab, 1990

Held, on! v definitions and interpretations as given in Civil Service Rules had been adopted

Condition as provided for change of one's date of birth in the Punjab Financial Rules had not been adopted by the University pursuance of Cl.(f) of para. 1

Respondent was directed to make necessary changes in service record of the petitioner regarding date of birth.

[Age].

Petition requesting for grant of four grace marks under Regn. 4, Punjab University Calendar for enabling him to pass LL.B. Examination

No action was taken by University

First proviso to Regln. 4, Punjab University Calendar provided that candidate would be deemed to have passed if he failed in any individual paper by margin of 5 marks but such benefit was not to be given to those candidates, who although failing by five or less marks, had appeared in examination in parts

History of petitioner's case was such that beneficial construction of Regln. 4, Punjab University Calendar had to be made as a whole so as to give benefit of grant of 5 grace marks to every candidate

Denial of such benefit to petitioner would not be only harsh but also discriminatory if such benefit was denied to petitioner who had otherwise secured high marks in other papers

Petitioner's contention that every time he was given 36 marks indicated that something was wrong somewhere

Petitioner's case was governed by beneficial construction and equitable considerations

High Court declared that relevant proviso to Regln. 4, Punjab University Calendar to the extent where benefit of five grace marks was not granted to those candidates who had appeared in examination in parts, was not valid on account of its being discriminatory and in direct conflict with 1st proviso giving benefit of 5 grace marks to all candidates in circumstances mentioned therein

Authorities were directed to give petitioner grace marks in accordance with 1st proviso of Regln. 4, Punjab University Calendar relating to LL.B. Examination and declare his result of LL.B. Examination accordingly.

Controller of Examination with the approval of Vice-Chancellor was the Competent Authority to decide whether candidate's paper was received or not

No such finding was recorded by Competent Authority

High Court's finding to the effect that since candidate's answer book was lost after it was handed over to Superintendent, candidate was entitled to the average of marks in the paper in question on the basis of performance of other papers

Validity

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and was disposed of with direction to Vice-Chancellor to consider the finding recorded by Controller of Examinations after hearing candidate and examining record of the University including factum that candidate had obtained first division marks in other papers

Vice-Chancellor was directed to dispose of such matter within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order of Court.

Only material which was used against petitioner was comparison of handwriting of petitioner and that of his twin brother who was purported to have taken examination in place of petitioner

Evidentiary value of such material

Comparison of handwriting was although legitimate enough method of supporting evidence and view of persons competent to express opinions might be in many cases, of considerable value yet opinions of those who had not studied carefully art of calligraphy was not as a rule of very great utility

Science of study of calligraphy was so uncertain and inexact that it had been the tendency to regard evidence even of experts as of somewhat inconclusive character.

Appointment of petitioner by the University being non-statutory, termination of his service during extended probationary period was unexceptionable

Constitutional petition was not competent in circumstances.

Candidate applied and consequently appeared in BA. Annual Examination, 1988 at Bahauddin Zakaryia University and was declared successful

Candidate, after obtaining migration certificate from Bahauddin Zakriya University dated 4-2-1.989 applied to Punjab University for B.Ed. Examination which was held in June, 1989

Punjab University issued Roll number to the candidate and candidate appeared in B.Ed. Examination but her result was withheld by the University Authorities on the plea that while she had already passed her B.A. Examination in 1988 from Bahauddin Zikriya University, she was not eligible to appear in the B.Ed. Examination in 1988, held in June, 1989

Validity

Held,, candidate admittedly appeared in BA. Annual Examination, 1988 and thereafter obtained migration certificate and appeared in B.Ed. Examination in June, 1989 after the lapse of one year from her first examination, there was, therefore, gap of one year between the two examinations and by no stretch of imagination it could be said that candidate appeared in the examination in one and the same year

Interpretation of University Authorities of the word "same year" or "academic year" was not only arbitrary. but whimsical when there was a gap of 12 months between two examinations

Plea of University Authorities that although candidate had taken B.Ed. Annual Examination in the year 1989 but the University called that examination as Annual Examination, 1988 and, therefore, both the examinations could be said to have taken in the same year, and for that reason result was withheld, could not be accepted in circumstances.

[Words and phrases).

If the answer book received by the Examiner is lost before or after its evaluation, the average of the marks obtained by the candidate in other papers shall be awarded to him in the said paper

Examinee, however, has the option to avail average of the marks or to re-appear in the paper

Where the examinee does not want to re-appear in the said paper and he/she has a genuine claim and authorities have failed to point out any kind of mischief, mishandling or misuse or misconduct on the part of examinee, examinee cannot suffer for the gross negligence of the Authorities or the person incharge of the examination

High Court directed the Authorities to determine the average of the marks obtained by the examinee in other papers in which he/she appeared and declared successful.

Ss. 15, 19 & 32???Calendar of University of the Punjab, Regln. No. 6???Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199???Benefit of average marks??Entitlement???Petitioner appeared in 2nd Annual Examination of BA. in 1990???Result was shown "later on", but was not declared even after lapse of more than a year???Authorities contended that answer book of Paper English "A" of petitioner was not traceable and since petitioner did not pursue the matter for long time he should suffer for his inactions ???Authorities at the best offered to arrange special examination for English A Paper for the petitioner???Held, it was statutory duty/obligation of Authorities to declare the result and they could not shift the responsibility???Petitioner, in the circumstances, was entitled to benefit of average marks in terms of proviso l to Regln. 6, Calendar of University of the Punjab Act, 1973.

Candidate's failure in B.Sc. Examination in 1991 and subsequent appearance in B.A. Examination in 1992 without disclosing his earlier appearance in B.Sc. Examination

Effect

Candidate was not issued result card in spite of having passed BA. Examination

Validity

Candidate had suppressed factum of his appearance in B.Sc. Examination bf 1991 by crossing the relevant column of the Form

Candidate having earlier appeared in B.Sc. Examination within next two years, his appearance in B.A. Examination in 1992, was, not warranted by Regln. 4, Calendar of the University of Punjab

Candidate's result card thus had been rightly withheld by the University.

Petitioner, thereafter, submitted Admission Form for BA. Examination held in 1992 without disclosing his earlier attempt in B.Sc. Examination

Petitioner had admittedly suppressed factum of his appearance in B.Se. Examination of 1991

Petitioner could not have appeared in the BA. Examination within next two years in accordance with prohibition contained in Regln. 4, Chap. 1, Part 111, Calendar of the University of the Punjab

Petitioner's result had been rightly withheld on account of irregularities committed by him

Constitutional petition was not maintainable in circumstances.

Calendar of the University of the Punjab, 1968-69 (Vo1.II), Regln. 4 [as amended by Notification No.517/G.M. dated 12-3-1975]

Entitlement to grace marks

Essentials

University, under Regln. 4 of the Calendar, was although under obligation to grant 5 (five) grace marks or less for the LL .B. Examination, yet such concession could not be made applicable to cases which were covered by third proviso to Regln. 4 under which a candidate who had taken the examination in parts was disentitled to award of any grace marks

Expression in Regln. 4 (third proviso) of the Calendar, "those who appear in examination in parts" would apply to all cases where a candidate had not taken examination as a whole but had appeared in a part thereof

Petitioner having taken 1st Annual Examination in November, 1990 as a whole, had failed in Papers IV, V and VI and in subsequent examination, i.e., IInd Annual Examination he had only appeared in Papers IV, V and VI and not in the whole examination

Petitioner's case was thus, covered by the third proviso of Regln. 4 of the Calendar, under which petitioner was not entitled to any grace marks.

Research work for Ph.D. Degree in field of science is never academic study alone but involves practical work culminating in positive contribution towards extension of knowledge relating to the branch of study.

Vol. I, p. 529

Countable experience for the post in question

Candidate's application for the post was rejected on the ground that he having done his post graduation studies in his private capacity, period spent by him for obtaining Ph.D. Degree could not be counted

Validity

Candidate was not bound to have acquired experience while being in service

Rule 6, contained in Calender of the University of the Punjab, 1990, Vol. I clearly indicated that study leading to Ph. D. Degree involved research work

Candidate's countable experience including his research work for Ph. D. Degree rendered him eligible for the post in question.

Vice-Chancellor had the bounden due to have taker up the matter and applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and come to a reasonable decision

Failure to conduct such enquiry

Effect

Duties and functions of Vice-Chancellor.-[Educational institution]

Where answer book of a candidate was lost after its receipt by the examiner, he would be entitled as of right, to be awarded the average marks obtained by him in other papers

Such candidate, however, has option either to avail of the average marks or to reappear in the paper

No scope is available to fall back upon other material to determine the marks obtained by a candidate in a paper which had been lost, after receipt by the examiner.

Entitlement to, prior to amendment and after amendment of regulation.

Ss. 89 & 89-A read with Government of India Act, 1935, Constitutions of Pakistan 1956, 1972 and 1973-Interpretation of statutes-Crash helmets, compulsory use of-Expression "mechanically propelled vehicles" mentioned in legislative lists of all constitutional enactments and such lists further containing general item reading "matters incidental and ancillary to any matter enumerated" as amplifying guide for interpretation-Phrase "mechanically propelled vehicles"-Includes only - matters concerning manufacture and use thereof, if interpreted in strict manner and leaves out questions of traffic control, road transport, licensing system, etc.

Phrase thus to be given a wide connotation so as to include all incidental and ancillary matters-Major part of Chap. VII of Ordinance dealing with various measures to avoid accidents and to achieve safety for users and use of crash helmets being a measure of safety, contention that Ss. 89 & 89-A falling in Chap. VII and such chapter dealing with control of traffic, object of

Read with University Calendar (1963-64), Vol. I, Regulations 12 & 18-Student allegedly caught by Invigilator in Examination Hall for having in his possession hand-written sheets of paper kept by him underneath answer book -Such student not bound to make a statement before Centre Superintendent when asked to do so-Refusal to give such a statement cannot constitute an, offence in its own place nor can candidate be punished under Regulation 18 for same.