2001 PLP 1638 (MLD)

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the afore‑mentioned Regulations. Clause (7)(c) of the Regulations provides as under:‑‑ "(7)(c)(i) A student shall be required to pass at least 12 credits of course in each of the 1st and 2nd Semester failing which the students shall be deemed to have failed in the respective semester. A student shall be required to pass at least 9 credits of course work in each of the 3rd and 4th Semester failing which the student shall be deemed to have failed in the respective semester. A student failing to pass 60 credits of course work at the end of the 4th Semester, shall be required to pass in the 5th Semester at least 9 credits of course work or all the remaining credits if less than 9 failing which the student shall be deemed to have failed in that Semester. (ii) A student who has failed in any semester under clause (7)(c)(i) may be given once chance as a concession to continue his studies. Such a concession shall be granted only once during the entire period of study of Master's degree. (iii) A student failing twice under clause (7)(c)(i) shall cease to be a student of the University. (iv) A student failing to pass 60 credits course work at the end of the 6th Semester shall cease to be a student of the University"

5. Above quoted Regulation clearly shows that a student who has failed twice under clause (7)(c)(i) shall cease to be student of the University. Admittedly the petitioners in all these writ petitions have availed two chances or having not appeared in the examination were declared failed, and therefore, have ceased to be students of the University under the Regulations. It is established principle that if a student does not appear in the examination, he will be deemed to have failed in the examination/semester. Failure of the petitioners twice in the examination has disentitled them to remain students of the respondent‑University.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any regulation, instructions or rules through which Regulations relating to Admissions, Registration and Examinations to M.A. /M.Sc./M. Phil of Quaid‑e‑Azam University have been modified or over‑ruled.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that there is no provision under the University Regulations to provide extra chance of examination to the failed students and that if the failed students are allowed to have extra chance of examination, it will disturb the whole academic system of the University which will adversely affect the other students. He has referred to Miss Sakina Begum v. Selection Committee for Bolan Medical College (1995 SCMR 334) and Chairman Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Balochistan v. Maleha Ejaz and another (1995 SCMR 1060) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to interfere in the education affairs as no violation of rules of the A respective Institution or discrimination to the students therein was established.

8. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioners have been discriminated and the impugned action of the respondent is violative of the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution. This Court has already considered this question in Muhammad Asadullah Khan v. Chairman, Department of Computer Science, Quaid‑e‑Azam University Islamabad and others (PLD 1994 Lahore 9) wherein it was held that:‑‑ "Quaid‑e‑Azam University Regulations, 1992 have been framed or amended by competent Authority in a regular or lawful manner. Presumption is always in favour of constitutionality of an enactment; burden will be upon the person who attacks the same to show that there has been infringement or transgression of Constitutional principles. Aggrieved person while invoking Article 25 of the Constitution must make out that he has been treated differently from other similarly circumstanced without any reasonable basis. Legislature or a body framing certain rules must be presumed to understand and correctly appreciate the needs of his own people and it is aware of their problems, and endeavours to solve the same in the light of past experience and present day needs, taking care of general welfare and future orientation of that particular segment of society, falling within its domain ‑ No case was made out to show as to how petitioner had been accorded any, unequal unfair or hostile treatment in the matter in question. Petitioners could not establish that Quaid‑e‑Azam University Regulations are any part thereof was a discriminatory or inhuman legislation, designed to perpetuate injustice to the petitioner. " Even otherwise the petitioners being students of M.A. M. Sc. and M Phil cannot compare themselves with the students of the Medical Colleges, whose examination is held annually whereas the examination of the above said courses is held on semester basis under different sets of Rules.

9. In the light of the above referred Regulation of the University and the judgments referred to above, no case for interference has been made out for exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petitions 8 are without any force and are dismissed. No order as to costs. H.B.T./J‑40/L Petitions dismissed.