2010 PLP 999 (CLC)

RAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT KHAN ABBASI, J.

Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner had got admission in the respondent No.1/Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan (hereinafter called as BZU, Multan) in M.Sc. Physics (semester system) at Self-Finance basis on 15-9-2006; that the petitioner was dropped from the University in December, 2006 due to lack of GP whereupon he got re-admission in the first semester which was held in August, 2007; that the petitioner qualified his Ist and 2nd semesters in December, 2007 and May, 2008 by obtaining 2.26, 2.0 GP out of 4.0 respectively. He was promoted in third semester in May, 2008 with GP 2.00 out of 4.00 with one compartment of electronics; that in August, 2008 he was again dropped in third semester examination due to less GP.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner cannot be dropped in third semester but he can only be detained for third semester while the other students who were also not having got required GP were detained by the respondents and the petitioner was treated with discrimination which is unwarranted in the eyes of law. According to the petitioner he will be governed by the following rules:

"However, if a student fails to comply with any of the conditions in fifth and subsequent semester in four years program and third in subsequent semesters in two years programs, he will be detained in that semester and he will repeat the semester. He will be promoted to the next semester on attaining a CGPA of 2.00. The students will have to complete their courses within the stipulated time for completion of degree, which is two additional semesters for two years programs and four additional semester for four years programs. However, hostel facility shall not be extended to such students."

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised certain legal and factual objections in their comments; that petitioner could not secure the requisite CGPA from 2.00 as he obtained 1.02 GPA and 1.63 CGPA at the end of third semester therefore, he was dropped from the roll of department in terms of regulations 11(V) of the Uniform Semester System Rules; that he was allowed to complete the degree within the stipulated time (six semester to be counted first semester as two years programs); that the petitioner was re-admitted by the Semester Implementation Committee on 18-4-2006 in first semester. He was re-admitted on the condition that the period of completion degree requirement shall not exceed of time limit provided in the statutes. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University through Vice-Chancellor v. Muhammad Illyas (2004 YLR 2638); Munir Mohsin and others v. Vice-Chancellor Baha-ud-Din Zakriya University (2002 MLD 1329).

4. I have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the report/parawise comments/record.

5. Whether the petitioner will be governed by the Regulation 11(V) of the Uniform Semester Rules or Rules mentioned in the above Para No.2, in order to understand the controversy involved in the matter, it will be appropriate to go through relevant regulation 11(V) of the Uniform Semester Rules notified on 14-4-2004 which reads as under: "Likewise at the end of each semester, a student must obtain a minimum cumulative grade point average (CGPA) of 2.0 and must also pass at least 50% of the courses taken by him in order to be promoted in the next semester. If any of the preceding two conditions are not complied with by a student, he shall be removed from the rolls of the department."

6. The respondents-University authorities are best judge of their own affairs. This court normally does not interfere in the internal affairs of the University. The statutes through which University came to existence has given power to its authorities to frame the regulation qua manners, mode, conduct, standard and regularization of examination from time to time. They have powers to frame the policy in this regard, this court while exercising the constitutional jurisdiction has to follow and implement the relevant regulation. It cannot substitute its opinion with the opinion of those who were actively involved in making such policy, merely on sympathetic considerations. There is no force in the arguments of the petitioner that he has been treated differently than other students. He along with other students, who failed to perform well and failed to obtain the requisite GPA and CGPA. They were dropped from the roll of the department in terms of the regulation 11(V) of the University in order to maintain the requisite standard of the education of the University. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner should have been detained in third semester and should be asked to repeat the semester hence rule on which the petitioner is relying will not be applicable in his case. He will be governed by the regulation 11(V) of the University Semester System. It is suffice to say that petitioner at the time of taking his admission was supposed to know the rule and regulations applicable to him duly notified, from time to time. The petitioner has no vested right to claim that examination be taken in a manner he likes or as per old regulation. Prospectus or regulation is subject to change or alteration yearly basis for which student, shall be bound to obey the same. Reliance is placed on "Shafique Ahmad and others v. The Province of Punjab" (PLD 2004 SC 168), "Ali Yousaf and others v. Chairman Academic Dow Medical College, Karachi and others (2000 SCMR 1222). The University Authorities have powers to make their own regulations in order to achieve the high standard of education. While holding so, I am fortified by the dictum given by in case of Muhammad Ilyas v. Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan and another(2005 SCMR 961), in which my lord Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, J., has held that:

"Rules and regulations framed by the University Authorities for the purpose of conducting/regularizing its examination etc., were required to be interpreted by the University Authorities itself and courts should avoid to interpret the same unless a case of grave injustice was made out, otherwise it would be difficult for the University administration to run its internal affairs relating to examination, etc." The case of the petitioner was exactly similar to the case of Muhammad Illyas supra in which the name of the student was removed/dropped in the third semester. No interference was made by the apex court. The impugned action of dropping the petitioner from the roll of department is neither illegal nor discriminating or harsh and same has been taken according to the rules and regulations of the University. The petitioner is bound by these regulations, who has failed to make out his case of discrimination or unequal treatment by the University Authorities.

7. In the above circumstances for the forgoing reason, this petition has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Parties will bear their own costs. H.B.T./W-16/L Petition dismissed.