Punjab University Regulations
Punjab University Regulations legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Examinee applied for re-checking of her English Paper and on re-checking it was found that answer of one question was not marked and that she was assured that her paper would be sent to examiner for marking unmarked question
University did nothing to fulfil its commitment whereupon examinee filed suit which was decreed by Trial Court but the same was set aside in appeal
Validity
Examinee in her plaint and in her statement before Court had categorically stated that she had deposited requisite amount of fee under challan of specified number on 15-12-1984 in the Bank in favour of University for re-checking of English Paper and that Controller of Examination had promised to get her paper re-checked by examiner and convey to her the result
University did not produce Controller of Examination in evidence to rebut plea of examinee
In absence of such rebuttal, assertion made by examinee stood unrebutted
Fact that examinee had deposited requisite amount fee for re-checking of her paper on specified date also remained unrebutted for relevant record was not produced by the University
Rechecking/re-evaluation of paper in question, having not been done in accordance with Regln. 23 of the University and meanwhile answer-sheets having been destroyed, examinee was entitled to be awarded average marks in English Paper 'B' also in accordance with Regln. 6 of the University
If examinee's answer book had not been destroyed, assertions of examinee would have been proved or contradicted beyond doubt
Had record been made available by the University before Trial Court, presumption would not have been raised against University
Judgment and decree of Appellate Court was set aside while that of Trial Court decreeing plaintiff's suit was restored with modification and direction to University to award average marks in English Paper 'B' to examinee in accordance with Regln. 6, Regulations of the University of Punjab on basis of marks obtained by her in other papers.
[Educational institution].
Dissatisfied with marking of examination paper student /petitioner applied to University Authorities for its re-evaluation
On re-evaluation, Dean Faculty of Law enhanced marks
After re-evaluation University Authority on its own sent script alongwith others to panel of two experts for just evaluation
On re-examination by that panel marks were again decreased
Held, there was hardly any justification for making another person to sit in appeal of evaluation done by one of members of panel of experts
Second exercise undertaken by other expert would, therefore, appear to be wholly unwarranted in law
University authorities directed by way of writ of mandamus to declare petitioner's result in conformity with first re-evaluation.
Ss. 15(3), 28(2)(c) & 32(2)-Vices of University Regulations-Even if syndicate could not be called to session for approval of Regulations no reason existed for not calling upon Academic Council to perform its statutory functions of preparing Regulations on subject of admissionImpugned Regulation prepared as well as approved by Vice-Chancellor himself though Academic Council existing and Regulations put up before Academic Council later for its approval and approval obtained Authority on whose behalf action taken-Not to be made to accept action taken as "fait accompli"-Use of emergency power by invoking provisions of S. 15(3) for purpose of preparing Regulations, held, unauthorised and impugned Regulations ultra vices.
(Vices of Regulations].
No. 13-Educational institutions-Appellant a student of Medical College appearing in examination but his result withheld with remarks "L: R. Fee" meaning result to be declared after due fees paid-Appellant and .two other students in a subsequent notification allegedly issued by Punjab University shown to have passed, appellant having secured certain number of marks-Notification on inquiry proved to have been forged-Appellant called upon to show cause why action be not taken against him for having stage-managed issuance of such notification-Cause shown not found satisfactory and Disciplinary Committee disqualifying appellant for three years-Appellant's writ petition also dismissed by High Court-Disciplinary Committee not only affording more than adequate opportunity to appellant and hearing him on two occasions to clear himself but also serving proper charge-sheet-Idle
Punjab University Regulations Regul. 18-Disqualification for appearance at examinationsFailure or refusal to make a statement or give explanation in examination hall-Does not fall within penal scope of Regul. 18
"Punjab University Regulations", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/3477
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Punjab University Regulations"
P L D 1976 Lahore 478
SHAHID MAHMOOD KHAN‑Petitioner Versus VICE‑CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB AND 4 OTHERS‑Respondents
Court: Regul. 13‑Giving or receiving assistance or copying or using other unfair means at examination‑Charge revealing offence as being only for possessing an objectional paper "from which he might have copied" and not that be in fact copied or was found copying‑university authority's comment filed in Court, however, showing examinee punished for actual copying and such finding based on some ost facto evidence‑Such evidence not shown to petitioner examinee harge‑sheet being different from finding ultimately recorded, file not lowing recording of any evidence or of any report of invigilators or any ther authority being put to petitioner in order to specifically explain (legations, disciplinary committee also not recording statement of any erson to explain the word "objectionable" as stated by examiner; sere showing of file to petitioner, particularly in view of lack of denial f petitioner's categorical statement that he was not shown any le, held, amounted to non‑fulfilment of even bare requirement of atural justice‑Whole process appearing to have been gone through i hasty and haphazard manner‑Penalty under r. 13, in circumstances, eld, not maintainable‑Impugned orders set aside, case remanded to disciplinary Committee for fresh decision in accordance with law fter giving proper hearing to petitioner‑Constitution of Pakistan 1973), Art. 199.1985 C L C 2987
SHEREEN MAS00D-Petitioner Versus UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB through The Vice-Chancellor, Lahore- Respondent
Court: Lahore1995 C L C 2025
ARJUMAND MANZOOR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus VICE‑CHANCELLOR, PUNJAB UNIVERSITY, LAHORE
Court: Lahore2005 C L C 1925
SANA SULTAN — Petitioner Versus 'UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES — Respondent
Court: LahoreP L D 1999 Lahore 207
Dr. SHAHIDA NASREEN, ADDITIONAL MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, SERVICES HOSPITAL, LAHORE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB through Vice‑Chancellor, Lahore and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court:P L D 1982 Lahore 729
UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS‑‑Petitioners Versus REHMATULLAH‑Respondent
Court: ‑‑ Art. 9 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199; Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3 and General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 8(1)‑Interpretation of statutes‑Right to appeal‑Art. 9 of Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 admittedly being substitute of Art. 199 of 1973 Constitution and provisions of Art. 199 being re enacted with modification in Art. 9 of Order, principle of construction laid down in S. F(1), General Clauses Act, 1897, attracted, viz. reference in any other enactment to provisions so repealed. (unless a different intention appears) to be construed as reference to provisions so re‑enacted and on such principle no need arose to amend S. 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972‑Legislature .if really intended to take away right of appeal it could have easily stated so in Art. 9 itself as it did in order to abridge jurisdiction‑Contention that Law maker by enacting Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, intended to take away right of appeal against orders passed under Art. 9 of such Order, held, not correct.‑Interpretation of statutes‑Appeal (civil).P L D 2001 Lahore 385
MUHAMMAD AJMAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE, RAWALPINDI and others‑‑‑Respondents
Court:1983 C L C 2288
S. ALI HASSAN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus VICE‑CHANCELLOR PUNJAB UNIVERSITY
Court: LahoreP L D 1993 Lahore 341
ADNAN TARIQ‑‑Petitioner Versus VICE‑CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB‑‑Respondent
Court:2002 Y L R 3344
MUHAMMAD MOHSIN ZIA ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY and 2 others.‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Lahore