Page 1 of 11

W.P.No.21382-2002

Stereo. H C J D A 38.
Judgment Sheet
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT AT LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P.No.21382-2002
JUDGMENT

Date of hearing:

26.06.2014

Petitioner: Seemab Far Bukhari,

represented by Mian Seed ud Din, Advocate.

Respondents No.1 to 3, University of Punjab

represented by Mr. Aamir Mahmood, Advocate.
Respondent No.4, Faeza Dawood
represented by Mr. Mobeen ud Din Qazi, Advocate.

IJAZ UL AHSAN, J. Through this constitutional

petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to respondents No.1 &
2 not to disturb the result already declared whereby she has
been shown as 1st Class 1st by obtaining 750 marks in the
subject of M.A. (Mass Communication) and a further
declaration to the effect that she is entitled to receive benefits
attached with a student, who secures the top position in the
university examination.
2.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was a

student of M.A. (Mass Communication), University of the

Punjab, Lahore. On 03.07.2001, she alongwith other students
were to sit for their final examination in the paper of Public

Page 2 of 11
W.P.No.21382-2002

Relations. Some of the students boycotted the paper on the plea

that the same was out of course. It is alleged that the male
students boycotted the paper first and thereafter four female
students left the center as well. The students who left the center
under pressure included the petitioner. However, about fifteen
female students remained in the center and took the
examination. These included respondent No.4 Faeza Dawood.
3.

Subsequently, the Board of Studies as well as the

Disciplinary Committee, University of the Punjab met and

decided that on compassionate grounds the students, who had
boycotted, may not be subjected to disciplinary actions or cases
for use of unfair means in the examination. It was decided to
give them another opportunity to appear in the examination
after about six months. Before such exams were conducted,
result of those students, who had not boycotted and appeared in
the examination, was declared. Respondent No.4 Faeza
Dawood secured 724 marks in the said examination. Since she
stood at the top of the merit-list, she was held entitled to receive
prize, medal etc. from the university. Later, fresh examination
was held on 09.04.2002. The result was declared on 21.06.2002
in which the petitioner secured 740 marks and stood first in the
said examination.

Page 3 of 11
W.P.No.21382-2002

4.

The grievance of the petitioner is that since she had

secured higher marks than respondent No.4, she should have

been declared first in the examination and should have been
held entitled to receive prize, medal and scholarship as per
Rules of Endowments, Calendar of the University of Punjab,
Volume-1, 2002.
5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that failure

on the part of the respondent university to declare that the

petitioner was entitled to be declared first and refusal on their
part to find her entitled to receive prize, medals and other
benefits, is unlawful and in violation of the rights of the
petitioner.
6.

The learned counsel for the respondent university, on the

other hand, submits that examination for Part-II, M.A. (Mass

Communication) was held in July, 2001. The examination in
the subject of Public Relations was held on 30.07.2001. The
result was declared on 13.02.2002 in which respondent No.4
was declared 1st on account of having secured 724 marks. A
certificate of merit was issued in her favour on 04.04.2002 and
the degree in her favour was issued by the Controller
(Examination) of the University of Punjab on 11.04.2002. It is
further pointed out that the petitioner had boycotted the earlier
paper. Even a case of use of unfair means was set up against

Page 4 of 11
W.P.No.21382-2002

her. However, the same was subsequently dropped by the

competent authority on an unconditional apology being
tendered.

Re-examination,

which

was

allowed

on

compassionate ground as a special examination, was held on

09.04.2002. It was eight months after the earlier examination.
The petitioner secured 740 marks. However, she was not
entitled to prize, medal and scholarship in terms of the Rules of
Endowment mentioned in the Calendar of University of Punjab,
Vol.-1, 2002. It is further submitted that any candidate, who
passed any examination in parts is not entitled to receipt of
merit, honours, distinction, prize or scholarship in terms of
Chapter-5
Regulations

of

the

University

Relating

to

Calendar

Candidates

titled

Passing

General
University

Examination In Parts. It is further argued that since the

petitioner had appeared in a special examination, which was
held eight months after the earlier examination, she was not
entitled to take the benefit of the boycott that she undertook.
Further, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take the benefit of
eight months of additional time which became available to her
by reason of the boycott to further prepare for the paper of Mass
Communication. It is, therefore, submitted that it would neither
be just nor proper that the benefit, which was given to
respondent No.4 bona fide and in compliance with the

Page 5 of 11
W.P.No.21382-2002

university rules and regulations, be taken away from her at this

belated stage and awarded to the petitioner.
7.

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone

through the record.

8.

The only question requiring determination by this Court

is whether the petitioner can be declared as having secured first

position and be granted the consequential benefit including
prize and medals etc. On hearing the learned counsel for the
parties and going through the record, my answer to the said
question is in the negative for the following reasons:-

i)

It is common ground between the parties

that the petitioner as well as respondent
No.4 were students of the same class and
were present in the examination hall on
July, 2001 when the paper in the subject
of Public Relations was to be held. On
account of reasons which are not entirely
clear from the record, the paper was
partially boycotted. The petitioner chose
to join the boycotters while respondent
No.4 chose to remain in the examination
hall and sat to take the examination.
Respondent No.4 sat for the examination
and attempted the paper in July, 2001. Her
entire result was declared on 13.02.2002.
She secured 724 marks and was placed at

Page 6 of 11
W.P.No.21382-2002

the

top

of

the

merit-list.

As

consequence, certificate of merit was

issued in her favour by the university on
04.04.2002. Simultaneously, a degree was
issued in her favour by the Controller of
Examination, University of Punjab on
11.04.2002. As such, all steps went
according to the rules and regulations of
the university;
ii)

It is not denied that the petitioner was

amongst those who had boycotted the
paper in the subject of Public Relations.
Whether she boycotted the paper on her
own accord or not is out of the scope of
these proceedings. The fact is that
respondent No.4 sat for the paper and
others boycotted and the petitioner was
amongst the boycotters. It is also not
denied that proceedings were initiated by
university authorities including setting up
a case of using unfair means. However, on
an apology being tendered, a lenient view
was taken, the proceedings were dropped
and it was agreed that those who had
boycotted examination would be allowed
to sit in a special examination held on
09.04.2002. The petitioner sat for the said
special examination held on 09.04.2002,
which was held 08 months after the earlier
examination. When result was announced,
she secured 740 marks, which was more
than those secured by respondent No.4.

Page 7 of 11
W.P.No.21382-2002

However, there is a clear distinction

between the petitioner and respondent
No.4 While respondent No.4 sat for the
original examination, the petitioner sat for
the special examination, which was held
08 months later, on the basis of different
question papers. Therefore, in the opinion
of this Court, the situation of the
petitioner and respondent No.4 may not
be equated nor can they be treated alike
and on the same footing.
In the aforenoted background, the
Calendar of the University of Punjab,
Volume-II, 1998, Part XIII, Chapter-V is
instructive. It provides as follows:-

The General Regulation Relating

To
Candidates
Passing
A
University Examination In Parts.
Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary
contained
in
the
Regulations, a candidate who
passed any examination of this
University in parts shall not be
entitled
to
merit,
honours,
distinction, prize or scholarship.

Likewise, Part-X of the Calendar of

the University of the Punjab, Volume-1,
2002 provides as follows:-

(c) Prizes,
medals
and
scholarships shall be awarded only
to those candidates, who take the

Page 8 of 11
W.P.No.21382-2002

examination as a whole and at the

time of annual examination. A
candidate
taking
the
whole
examination at the time of the
supplementary
examination
or
partly at the annual and partly at
the supplementary examination is
not entitled to the award.

The rationale and intention of the

aforenoted

regulations

is

clear

and

obvious. In the first place, candidates who

sit for one examination and do so together
are entitled to be treated alike and the one
who

secures

compared

to

the

highest

others

marks

as

similarly placed

students is entitled to recognition of his/her

merit by being given prize, honours or
scholarships. It is not denied that the
petitioner did not pass the examination in
one go. Notwithstanding the reason, it is
clear from the record that she passed the
subject of Public Relations in a subsequent
special examination. She is, therefore, hit
by the provisions of Chapter-5, Part-XIII,
Calendar of the University of the Punjab,
Volume-II 1998 and cannot claim the
relief

sought

Likewise,

through

Rules

of

this

petition.

Endowments

reproduced above also disentitle the

petitioner from claiming the benefit of
award or medal.
iii)

The learned counsel for the petitioner has

half-heartedly attempted to argue that the

Page 9 of 11
W.P.No.21382-2002

result card of the petitioner indicates that

even the special examination was treated
as a part of the annual examination and
was, therefore, liable to be considered as
such for the purpose of award of
distinctions and prize. I am afraid, the said
argument has not impressed me. It is too
technical an argument to be dealt with at
this

stage

where

the

facts

and

circumstances and regulations are clear

and

unambiguous.

Further,

having

admitted the fact that the petitioner did not

pass the examination in one go, it does not
lie with the petitioner to argue that since
the result card did not indicate that she had
passed the examination in parts, she was
entitled to the benefit of medal and
honours.
iv)

This question can also be looked at from a

different angle. The idea is to place all
students together on the starting line, let
them compete in the same conditions
which in this case would be the same
examination

consisting

of

the

same

questions which should be marked by the

same set of examiners and the one who
secures the highest marks should be
declared the person entitled to medal or
recognition of his/her merit. In this case,
the petitioner and respondent No.4 were
not similarly placed, they did not take the
same examination, they did not answer the

Page 10 of 11
W.P.No.21382-2002

same questions and it is not clear whether

the answer sheets were marked by the
same examiners. Therefore, a person, who
complied with all requirements, sat for the
examination despite there being a boycott,
displayed courage, was declared as the
successful candidate and her result was
announced

much

earlier,

cannot

be

deprived of the honour on the basis that a

person, who appeared in a subsequent
examination, on the basis of different
question papers and had the unfair
advantage of eight months of additional
time to prepare for one paper had secured
marks higher. This would lead to injustice
and also amount to discouraging a student,
who had courage to comply with the rules
and sit for an examination when others
were ready and willing to boycott. Even
otherwise, the petitioner had an undue
advantage over respondent No.4 because
she had eight additional months to prepare
for the paper of Public Relations and by
sitting in the examination eight months
later, she could have mastered the subject
more than the petitioner who sat for the
examination

eight

months

earlier.

Therefore, they cannot be treated at par.

v).

Finally, the rules and regulations of the

University are quite clear. They do not
support the case of the petitioner. Further,
the result of respondent No.4 was declared

Page 11 of 11
W.P.No.21382-2002

earlier and by the time result of the

petitioner was declared, respondent No.4
had already been declared as the top
student,

had

received

her

medal/recognition and degree had already

been issued in her favour. There is no
reason why the said benefits can be taken
away from her at a belated stage on
grounds which are even otherwise not
legally sustainable.

9.

For reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in

this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.

(IJAZ UL AHSAN)
JUDGE
*Aamer