Find a Lawyer

ARJUMAND MANZOOR versus VICE-CHANCELLOR, PUNJAB, LAHORE

University of Punjab Act 1973 Section 15 Punjab University Calendar Volume 1, Register 16 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional Application Educational Institution The respondent accused the petitioner of disclosing the identity of the examiner as earlier in MA English Part 11 Number one. ; The result was canceled in his response book on the alleged disclosure of the identity. No reasons were made for the applicant's conclusion. The applicant denied the claim of disclosing his identity by clearing the wrong date and writing a reply on the reply book which was deemed to have been disclosed in the reply book of the Vice Chancellor and Disciplinary Committee, based on no evidence. Was. The result of the petitioner was announced by notification of 22 5 1993, while the authorities decided in May 1995, two years later, disqualifying him for a term. The result of this year's ruling will be that the applicant will be disqualified for almost four years as he has to re-enter the final exam. A delay of more than two years in deciding the alleged misconduct cannot be ruled out, but the University administration acknowledged that action has been taken. The University cannot be defended against the applicant and therefore, it did not contest Case Regulation 16, does not authorize the University of the Punjab University Calendar to impose such fines, unless there is positive evidence. It is not likely that the candidate has committed unfair conduct by showing his / her identity if, in the absence of any legal evidence on record, the applicant supplied the alleged mismanagement. law firms from Kakul lawyer