AJK University Act, 1985

Service statutes — statutes 3 — appointment, powers and duties of Chairman/Director — tenure of — the Chairman is to be appointed from amongst the Professors and Associate Professors for a period of 3 years — Held: there is no prohibition in the Statutes that a Professor or Associate Professor cannot be appointed as Chairman for the second term. Miss Fatiha Shehzadi v. Vice Chancellor AJ&K University & 3 others 2016 SCR 134 (A)
Section 3 — The University is a body corporate by the name of University of Azad Jammu & Kashmir — It shall have perpetual succession and common seal and shall by the said name sue and be sued. Raja Abdul Qayyum Khan v. Azad Govt. & 2 others 2016 SCR 623 (A)
University of AJ&K Employees(Appeal) Statues, 1999 — statute 3 — right of appeal — to Syndicate — under statute 4 — on grounds effecting terms and conditions — under Statute 4, an appeal lies to the appellate authority, the Syndicate, from the order of the authority against the employee which alters to his disadvantage, his Conditions of service, pay, allowances or pension; or interprets to disadvantage the provisions of any statute whereby his conditions of service, pay, allowances or pension are regulated. Syndicate AJK University v. M. Asif Ishfaq 2016 SCR 350 (A)
Statutes 3 to 11 of 1999 — a comprehensive method for disposal of appeal is provided in statute 3 to 11of the statute 1999. Syndicate AJK University v. M. Asif Ishfaq 2016 SCR 350 (B)
S. 5(2) of the First Statute — It is the requirement that Selection Board shall co-opt or consult two experts who are on the standing list — Such experts shall be nominated by the Voice Chancellor — The standing list shall be revised from time to time — The person who is to be consulted as expert should be expert in the concerned subject. Engineer Muhammad Khalid v. The University of AJ&K and 8 others 2004 SCR 467 (A)
Chapter 11 clause 10 — In this case Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent or the Invigilators of the centre have failed to comply with the provisions of clause 10 of Chapter 11 of the Regulations of Conduct of Examination — The requisite certificate was not produced either with the writ petition before the High Court or with memo of appeal before this Court — The punishment awarded to the respondent was unfair and unlawful — The officials of the University have not been conducting inquiries in accordance with Rules and Regulations. University of AJK & others v. Kamran Niaz 2005 SCR 33 (A)
Statute 12 of 1999 — right of appeal — on ground of penalty under E&D statute 1988 — manner of disposal under statute 12 to 15 — The other right of appeal is provided against the penalty. As for the manner of disposal of appeal against the penalty order passed under the E&D Statutes, 1988 is concerned, for the purpose a comprehensive mechanism and procedure is provided in Statutes, 12 to 15 of Statutes, 1999. Syndicate AJ&K University & 4 others v. Muhammad Asif Ishfaq & 4 others 2016 SCR 350 (C)
Statute 12 of 1999 — appeal under E&D statute 1988 — penalty — no concept to refer to Appeal Committee — under Statutes, 1988, appeal against penalty shall refer to the Syndicate, there is no concept of referring the matter to any Appeal Committee — Held: referring of matter to the Appeal Committee in this case when the appeal was against penalty imposed under Statutes, 1988 is not consistent with the prescribed manner. Syndicate AJ&K University & 4 others v. Muhammad Asif Ishfaq & 4 others 2016 SCR 350 (D) 2012 SCR 367 rel.
Regulation 14 of chapter 11 of University Regulations — High Court held that under Regulation 14, the Syndicate or University Authorities are competent to investigate the validity of degree and that such powers exist in the University despite the fact that Regulation 22 imposes prerequisite condition that the authority shall not be exercised after 3 years of declaration of result — The Court observed that Regulation 14 is part of chapter 11 of calendar of the University which deals with the Regulations for conduct of examinations — Regulation 1 to 13 of chapter 11 deals with procedure to be adopted by the superintendents of centres and appointment of University staff like superintendents, Deputy superintendents and invigilators. Held: This provision cannot be adhered to for cancelling a degree or certificate or recalling the result announced three years back. Munawar Hussain v. The University of AJK & others 2011 SCR 27 (B)
Rule,15 & 12 — Rules of Semester System, Examination, Residence and Discipline — award of distinction and medal — direction of removing — ambiguity in rules — and direction for making clarity and definiteness — We may also deem it necessary to observe here in public interest and with reference to the observation of the Committee that for removing the ambiguity, the concerned authorities should make rules more clear and definite so that such like disputes may not arise because every student has not such sources or determination to seek his right at the judicial forum which also amounts to bear heavy financial burden and the agony of litigation. Mst. Nafeesa Manzoor v. AJ&K University & 7 others 2016 SCR 304 (E)
Rule.15 & 12 — Rules of Semester System, Examination, Residence and Discipline — award of distinction and medal — if two or more students obtain same CGPA — two formulas for award of — one, for students who obtained CGPA between 3.5 and 3.9 — computed upto any decimal point — second, for students who obtained CGPA of 4.0 — on basis of (exclusively) overall percentage — According to this rule, there are two classes of the students; one falling in the line who obtained CGPA between 3.5 and 3.9 and the other who obtained CGPA of 4.0. For determination of the merit of these two classes, there is a clear distinction. For the first class, the CGPA has to be computed upto any decimal point, whereas, for the later class the basic formula for determination of merit is (exclusively) overall percentage. In the report of the Committee, the formula adopted, in our opinion, appears to be akin to the standard prescribed for the first class of students who obtained CGPA between 3.5 and 3.9. For such class, for computation of CGPA upto any decimal point, the calculation will be made. For calculation of the CGPA according to the rules, the credit hours are one of the factors for calculation of the grading system as prescribed under rule 12 of Semester Regulations. But in our opinion this formula does not appear to be more relevant for calculation of overall percentage. For calculation of the overall percentage the Committee itself has mentioned the formula which speaks that the calculation shall be made on the basis of Overall %age = Marks obtained x 100 Total Marks Mst. Nafeesa Manzoor v. AJ&K University & 7 others 2016 SCR 304 (A)
Formulas for calculation of(exclusively) overall percentage — According to the system, for every course the marks are mentioned on percentage basis. The calculation of both the contestants according to the admitted documents (i.e., result intimation cards) shows that, the total sum of percentage of marks of both the contestants comes to 1965, whereas, the total marks of the course are 2300 as per interpretation furnished by the authorities. Therefore, according to the formula (i.e., 1965/2300 x 100) the (exclusively) overall percentage of both the contestants is 85.43. Thus, by application of the first formula as mentioned by the Committee in its report the overall percentage of both the contestants is equal. The Committee in its report has also observed that there is no set formula or rule for evaluating the overall percentage. It is further mentioned that in past, the percentage had been calculated on two different formulas, which are reproduced as under: (I) Overall %age = Marks obtained x 100 Total Marks (ii) Overall %age = %age of marks x Credit hours Total credit hours It appears that the Committee has adopted the second formula which in our opinion is not more nearer to for determination of overall percentage rather it appears to be nearer to for determination of Grade and CGPA. Mst. Nafeesa Manzoor v. AJ&K University & 7 others 2016 SCR 304 (B)
Rule 22 — This rule lays down that Syndicate has the power to quash the result or to withdraw the degree of a candidate for the reasons stated in it — The reason enumerated in third para is that the candidate was not eligible to appear in the examination. This rule is subject to the provisio that the order of quashing the result under paras 2 and 3 is issued not later than three years from the date of declaration of the result of the examination concerned. A.J.K University & others v. Muhammad Malik & others 1995 SCR 231 (A)
Regulation 22 of chapter 13 of General Regulations — Powers of University authorities-syndicate to quash result or withdraw degree, diploma or certificate — Limitations while exercising powers — Under regulation 22, the University can quash result or withdraw the degree, diploma or certificate after it has been declared or awarded in three eventualities; i.e.(I) if the holder had been disqualified for using unfair means in the examinations, (ii) if a mistake is found in the compilation or declaration of his result card and (iii) if he was not eligible to appear in the examination — The power is subject to specific conditions that mistake if found in the compilation of result or declaration of result or it is found that the candidate was not eligible to appear in the examination, the degree can be quashed within the period of 3 years. Munawar Hussain v. The University of AJK & others 2011 SCR 27 (A)
S. 25(2) — It was within the domain of the Syndicate only to effect any change in the regulations — If any amendment is required in any regulation the same is required to be referred to the Academic Council which has been vested with the function of preparing regulations, which after the approval by the Syndicate attains the status of law. Ali Ahmed Shah University College of Engineering & Technology Mirpur & 4 Others v. Ansar Iqbal 2003 SCR 482 (A)
S. 38 — Appeal — Mere fact that the Voice Chancellor agreed with the report of the inquiry officer would not render the provision regarding appeal to the Syndicate as nugatory — If the appellant had any objection that Voice Chancellor should not preside over the meaning of Syndicate he could raise objection to that effect and any other arrangement could be made for presiding over the meeting. 1998 SCR 23 (A)
S. 38 of the Act — Appeal can be filed by a person against whom an adverse order has been passed — It does not bestow a right to challenge another person’s appointment. Muhammad Azad Khan v. Vice–Chancellor and another 1999 SCR 270 (B)
Statutory Corporations or corporate bodies or institutions which are established or controlled by the Govt. are covered by the definition of word ‘Agency’ as provided in section 2 of Ombudsman Act — University has been established u/s 3 of the Act known as the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Act, 1985 — This Act was passed by the Assembly as a result of an official bill introduced in the Legislative Assembly — Therefore, there is no occasion for the argument that the University was not established by the AJK Govt. — Contention that University was not an ‘Agency’ as envisaged in Ombudsman act, has no substance, the same, therefore, repelled. Abdul Qadeer and 148 others v. AJK University and another 2000 SCR 36 (C)
No qualification has been mentioned for an expert — Held: The finding of the High Court that the Chief Engineer having vast experience in the relevant field could not be taken out of ambit of experts in the relevant subject is not without any substance — The practical experience gained by him during his long service could have been ignored only if in the Act itself some special qualifications would have been prescribed for experts. Engineer Muhammad Khalid v. The University of AJ&K and 8 others 2004 SCR 467 (B)
AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, S. 42 — Incumbent of Contract Service — Right for permanent induction — Case of appellants that the University of AJK was under legal duty to regularize services of appellants who were serving against posts of lecturers, but instead the authorities had in a discriminatory manner terminated services of appellants and appointed said respondent — High Court dismissed writ petition — Impugned judgment — Validity — Contract appointment confers no right for permanent induction in service — Such service is for a particular period — Appellants failed to cite any service statute of AJK University which conferred a right in an incumbent of contract service for permanent induction — Case of appellants were distinguishable as compared to referred case, therefore, there was no question of discrimination — Civil appeal dismissed. CONTRACT EMPLOYEE — (Right for permanent induction) Tahira Maqbool Lecturer v. Chancellor of the University of AJK 2013 SCR 702 (A)
Appeal on behalf of University — competency of — Nothing is on the record that Advocate is authorized to file appeal on behalf of King Abdullah University — The University is a statutory body — There is no concept of verbally authorizing a person to file a plaint or appeal on its behalf — Appeal not competently filed. Raja Abdul Qayyum Khan v. Azad Govt. 2016 SCR 623 (B)
Part IV — Efficiency and Discipline — Chapter 2 — Appeal Statutes — Statute 3 & 12 — right of appeal — argument: available only to employee holding post in University — misconceived — right of appeal available — to university employee who are not holding post or have been removed from service — The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the remedy of appeal can only be availed by the employee who is holding the post has no substance and misconceived. Perhaps, he has not studied the Appeal Statutes as a whole and drew the conclusion just on the basis of paragraph (Statute) 3, whereas, the Statute contains comprehensive provision including the paragraph (statute) 12 which is specifically related to the matter in hand and examination of which clearly proves that the right of appeal is available even to the employees of University who are not holding he post or have been removed from service. University of AJ&K & 2 others v. Khawar Naz 2016 SCR 866 (C)
The Service Statutes — Delegation of Powers Notification No.126-156/Registrar/2000, dated 07-11-2000 — Dean — authorised appointing authority — only competent — to issue — termination order — The Service Statute clearly speaks that Vice Chancellor or other person authorised by him is competent to make appointments. The Dean of Faculty of Sciences has been delegated powers to appoint staff in BPS-1 to BPS-14 under provisions of Delegation of Powers Notification No.126-156/Registrar/2000, dated 07-11-2000. The University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Statutes, 1988 has defined the competent authority as an officer or authority competent authority as an officer or authority competent to appoint the accused. Thus, the authority in relation to the respondent is Dean of the Faculty of Sciences, whereas, the impugned termination order has been passed by the Vice Chancellor, on the move of Chairman of the Department. Neither the Chairman of the Department is authority no by bypassing the Dean of faculty of Sciences he can directly move the matter of termination to the Vice Chancellor. Therefore, the termination order dated 23.08.2007 is illegal from this angle. University of AJ&K & others v. Khawar Naz 2016 SCR 866 (D)
— Chapter 28 — Regulations Relating to Admission, Registration and examination for Ph.D — Regulations 12 —for admission to Ph.D program, a candidate mut have at least a 2nd division from matriculation to M.Phil — This condition can only be relaxed by V.C. for teachers of universities/degree colleges engaged in postgraduate teaching and employees of research organizations involved in research. Rashid Mehmood vs University of Azad Jammu & others 2024 SCR 105(A)