2013 PLP 1150 (CLC)

IJAZ AHMAD, J.

The petitioner took admission in three years course in discipline of law started in the year 2005. She passed the Part-I and Part-II Exams. In Part-III she appeared in 1st annual 2010, 2nd annual 2010 and 1st annual 2011 and was declared fail as a whole on account of shortage of three marks in aggregate.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 5 of the Regulation for degree for LLB (3 years course) framed by the respondent-B.Z.U. provides five grace marks in an individual paper, in aggregate, to make up deficiency in more than one papers and to be placed in the next higher division. However, the 3rd proviso to this Rule takes away this right in the case of a candidate who appears in 2nd annual Exam. or in parts. It is argued that all the students whether taking the Exams in parts or in 1st annual or 2nd annual deserve the same concession and treatment as is provided under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which guarantee the inalienable right of its citizens to be treated in accordance with law and in equality vis-a-vis the others; that by virtue the 3rd proviso to the Rule ibid, the petitioner has been prejudiced and discriminated from others who have not sought the exemption in any paper or who appear in the Exam. as a whole.

3. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-(University) that the respondent-University has an authority and the law recognizes the scope of regularization and fair classification if the same is general in nature and is not aimed against a particular person or class of persons. All the candidates who appear in the Ist annual examination as a whole, the concession of five marks is extended to all of them so that they may be promoted in the next higher class in the first attempt and the University shall be able to shed away their load at the end of the year. All those students who either claimed exemption in any paper or appeared in the Exam. in parts have already benefited from the grace of extension of time in passing the Exam. They are not entitled to 5 grace marks which is extended to the students passing the Exam. in the first attempt.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent and perused the record.

5. As per the regularization framed for degree courses of Bachelors of law the provision of five grace marks seems to an effort on the part of the respondent-University to keep the fresh students moving into the next higher class. The respondent-University intends that deficiency of five marks either in any individual paper or in aggregate or collectively in more than one paper shall not be allowed to add to the number of the students on the role of the University. Once, a student breaks the itinerary, the University seems not to be in a hurry to promote such a student in the next higher class. Such a student has already availed a cution of time by over staying in the University that's why the respondent-University deprives such a student even from a prize or meddle. The over consumption of time by a student who opts to appear in the 2nd annual Exam. cannot be allowed to defeat the right of those who consume less time. This regulation cannot be termed to be prejudicial to the right of the petitioner or discriminatory in any manner. It has not been directed against the petitioner specially or a class of persons. The law allows a fair regulation and classification. This petition has no merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. AG/A-35/L Petition dismissed.