1988 PLP 1137 (CLC)

This Constitutional petition was initially filed by two petitioners, Sardar Ahmad Naeem and Mrs. Shama Roshan. Sardar Ahmad Naeem petitioner was absent on 18‑1‑1988 when this case was partly heard. He has not turned up even today. I am told that he is no more interested in prosecuting his case. Petition qua him is, therefore, dismissed in default.

2. Case of Mrs. Shama Roshan, hereinafter called the petitioner, is that she was admitted to LL.M. Class Part‑I of the Punjab University Law College in Academic Session 1986‑87 and she took up the following subjects: ‑ (1) Criminal Law. (2) Constitutional Law‑I. (3) Constitutional Law‑‑11, She attended the classes regularly until the end of the session except for the period during which she had gone abroad for medical check‑up. Examination for LL.M. Part‑I was scheduled to be held in June 1987 for which the petitioner deposited the necessary dues but she was not issued Roll number as she was short of lectures. Petitioner, therefore, approached this Court through the present constitutional petition praying therein that action of the respondents in not allowing her to take the LL.M. examination commencing from 1st June, 1987 be declared to be without lawful authority.

3. It may be stated that the petitioner was allowed to appear in the aforesaid examination under the orders of this Court but it was made clear that her result will not be announced till the decision of this case and that mere appearance in the examination would not confer any right on her if she was otherwise found to be ineligile to appear in the examination.

4. I have heard the petitioner in person as also her counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the Punjab University.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the University authorities that the petitioner attended only 90 lectures out of a total of 192 delivered during the session whereas under the Regulation governing the admission to LL.M. examination, a student is required to attend 75 per cent of the lectures delivered to the class. According to the learned counsel, petitioner was thus deficient by 54 lectures. Learned counsel has submitted that under Regulation No.2 (iv), Principal of the Law College is empowered to condone deficiency upto 5% of the total number of lectures, tutorials and seminars and that, too for valid reasons. It is argued by the learned counsel for the University that since the petitioner was short of lectures, beyond the condoning capacity power of the Principal, she was rightly refused admission in the examination. Petitioner has not denied the factual position submitted by the learned counsel for the University but she vehemently contended that she had gone abroad for medical check‑up which resulted in the shortage of lectures but she made up the deficiency by attending the additional lectures and completing special assignments arranged by her teachers. She has relied in this behalf on three certificates issued by her teachers. These certificates are shown to have been issued on 12th October, 14th October and 21st October, 1987 i.e. during the pendency of the writ petition. Since the petitioner's sole reliance is on these certificates, it appears appropriate to refer to them in some detail. Certificate dated 12th October, 1987 was issued by Dr. C.M. Hanif Associate Professor. He has stated that the petitioner was his student in the LL.M. Degree class of Criminal Law for the academic session 1986‑

87. Due to her long and serious illness, he had to proceed after obtaining leave of absence from the Law College, soon after her admission, and she came back 21 months later thus missing a number of lectures in his subjects. He then gave extra work to her by way of tutorials on the topics which she missed during her absence. It is also stated in the certificate that the petitioner finished special assignments on the topics dealt with in her absence to make good the deficiency in the number of lectures she had missed, Dr. C.M. Hanif, however, clearly stated in the certificate that he considered it unnecessary to report the above‑mentioned extra work to the Principal of the College as nobody was denied permission to sit in LL. M . examination previously on the basis of shortage of lectures. Next is the certificate dated 14‑10‑1987 issued by Dr. Dil Muhammad Malik, Teacher Incharge Constitutional Law‑II. He has stated that the petitioner was a very intelligent student and took keen interest in LL.M. studies. She was quite concerned about the lectures she missed during her leave of absence for the first couple of months. Seeing her interest and keenness, he gave her guidance in the form of extra lectures and tutorials to cover the missed topics and further to compensate her deficiency of missed lectures, he gave her special assignments covering the topics which were taught during her absence which she completed to his entire satisfaction. Certificate dated 21‑10‑1987 was issued by Professor Dr. M.A. Mannan, Dean, Faculty of Law, who certified that the petitioner attended his lectures and seminars on Constiutional Law‑I. He found her very intelligent, hard working and conscientious student. During the course of sessions, she had missed quite a few of the classes when she proceeded on leave for medical reasons. On her return to the class, she became quite regular and did all her work diligently. She covered her missed topics with the help of other class‑mates and the extra assignments I gave her on those topics.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the University argued that the aforereferred certificates are of no avail to the petitioner for the reason that the extra work, special classes and assignments, if any, arranged for the petitioner were never conveyed to the Principal with the result that had no material before him to certify that the petitioner had completed the lectures and had made up the deficiency. I quite agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the University. The certificates in question do not advance the petitioner's case because the extra lectures/ assignments allegedly given to her were admittedly not brought on the college record and were not conveyed to the Principal of the College. I also find that the certificates are quite vague. None of them specifically states the exact number of lectures/ tutorials delivered/held for the petitioner. She, too, did not specifically state either in the writ petition or in her rejoinder that she was given 54 additional lectures/ tutorials. In the circumstances, it cannot be said on the basis of these certificates that the petitioner had completed the deficiency of 54 lectures before the commencement of the examination. At any rate, since the extra A lectures /assignments said to have been given to the petitioner were not conveyed to the Principal he could not have certified under Regulation 2(iv)(b) that the petitioner had attended not less than 3/4th of the lectures/ seminars and tutorial meetings held and delivered for her class during the academic year immediately preceding the examination. The impugned action not permitting the petitioner to sit in the examination was thus quite justified in law and on facts and she cannot make any legitimate grievance against it.

7. Upshot of the above discussion is that the petitioner has fail to make out any case for interference in writ jurisdiction. This petition therefore, fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs. H.B.T./S‑211/L Petition dismissed.