EDUCATION, LAHORE and another vs SABIHA NASREEN and another
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by educational authorities against a judgment of the Lahore High Court that declared illegal a notification cancelling the MBBS examination result of respondent Sabiha Nasreen. The core legal question was whether a student who was allowed to sit for the final professional MBBS examination due to administrative oversight and negligence, despite a technical lack of the required one-year gap after passing the previous professional examination, could have her successfully declared result rescinded. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent could not be penalized for the negligence of the college and university staff, especially since she committed no fraud or misrepresentation. The Court laid down the principle of locus poenitentiae, holding that once a student successfully passes an examination and a result is notified without any fault or illegal means on her part, a vested right accrues, and the authorities lack the jurisdiction to subsequently cancel the result due to a technical discrepancy or institutional oversight.
- Whether a student can be penalized for appearing in an examination due to the administrative negligence of college and university staff?
- Does a candidate acquire a vested right in an examination result when it has been officially announced and no fraud or misrepresentation is alleged?
- Can the educational authorities rescind the declared result of a candidate on the ground of a technical discrepancy after permitting her to take the examination?
- Article 199, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
ORDER
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.- Petitioners crave for leave to appeal against the judgment dated August 25, 1999 passed by Lahore High Court Multan Bench whereby Writ Petition No. 7061/1999 instituted by respondent Sabiha Nasreen has been issued and as a consequence whereof Notification dated 5th June, 1999 was declared illegal and without lawful authority with further observation that she was lawfully declared successful in the final MBBS examination in the Ist Annual 1998 vide Notification dated 27th May, 1999.
2. Succinctly stating facts of the case relevant for disposal of instant petition are that respondent No. 1 appeared in third professional MBBS examination and qualified the same vide result declared in October 1998. This delay occurred because of her failure in the subject of Pathology which statedly she ultimately qualified after availing more than one attempts. It is interesting to note that in the meanwhile she was allowed to take final professional examination Ist Annual 1998 as on accepting her admission forms Roll Number slip was issued. Consequently the result of the examination was announced on May, 27, 1999 declaring respondent No. 1 successful by obtaining 997 marks. Surprisingly vide notification dated June, 5, 1999 her result was cancelled declaring that she was not eligible to appear in the examination.
3. Under above circumstances respondent No. 1 invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 cif the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan which has been accept vide impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that resp ndent No. 1 was not eligible to take First Annual Examination of 1998 beca se as per Rules there should be gap of one year in two professional examinations. The respondent had qualified her third professional MBBS Examination on 22nd October 1998, therefore, immediately thereafter within the span of less than one year she was not eligible to appear in the final professional examination, therefore, for such reason her result was rightly cancelled vide notification dated June, 5, 1999.
5. On our query petitioners counsel candidly conceded that due to negligence and over-sight by the staff of the College as. Well as the University admission form of the petitioner was accepted and she was allowed to take examination after issuing her roll number slip. It was also conceded by him that as far as respondent No. 1 is concerned, there is no allegation against her for influencing in any manner the office of the College or Controller of Examinations of Baha-ud-Din Zikarya University for managing to get her admission forms accepted.
6. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that respondent No. 1 cannot be blamed for appearing in final professional examination 1998 because she had been attending the classes regularly for the final professional examination and when she submitted her admission forms same were duly processed by the office itself because there was no objection against the respondent No. 1 to study in final professional class. Inasmuch as roll number slip was issued in her favour on basis of which she took examination and qualified the same successfully. At the best there could be a negligence on the part of both the institutions i.e. College and University and for their such conduct, respondent No. 1 cannot be blamed and penalized. It may also be noted that after having passed final examination her result was also notified, therefore, the concerned authorities for any technical discrepancy had no jurisdiction to rescind or recede the result of respondent No. 1 in view of the principle of locus poenitentiae as a vested right of passing final annual examination has accrued to her because it is no body's case that she had procured favourable result by illegal means. In forming this view we are fortified by judgements reported as Chief Secretary Government of Sindh and another Vs. Sher Muhammad Makhdoom and two others (PLD 1991 S.C. 973), The Engineer-ln,Chief Branch through Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and another vs. Jalaluddin (PLD 1992 S.C. 207) and Chairman, Selection Committee/Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore and two others Vs. Wasif Zamir Ahmad and another (1997 SC 182).
7. Thus for the above discussion, we see no substance in the petition, as such the same is dismissed and .