2006 PLP 1568 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD AASIM IQBAL KHAN — Petitioner Versus BAHA-UD-DIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY through Vice-Chancellor and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1568 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AASIM IQBAL KHAN — Petitioner Versus BAHA-UD-DIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY through Vice-Chancellor and 3 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1568 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1568 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1568 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD AASIM IQBAL KHAN — Petitioner Versus BAHA-UD-DIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY through Vice-Chancellor and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Tariq Rajwana for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.
It has been stated in the W.P. and affirmed by the respondent-University in its comments that the petitioner got admission in B.B. A.,(I.T.) Programme Session 2002-2005. This was later on converted into an Honours course; that the petitioner had an excellent education career and cleared all the 5 semesters (out of the 6 semesters) with very good marks.
2. The W.P. then narrates that father of the petitioner is a resident of Saudi Arabia and he had to go to the said country for renewal of his residence documents; He expected to return in 7 or 8 days but for reasons beyond his control, he had to remain abroad till 30-1-2006 when he returned. On 1-2-2006 when he went to his department, he found that he had been declared failed in the last semester of the said course and consequently dropped. According to him, in anticipation that his stay in Saudi Arabia may get prolonged, he had prepared an application and delivered it to a class-mate for presentation before respondent No.2 in terms of Rule 14 of the Uniform Semester Rules of the respondent-University. Now whereas according to the petitioner, the application was filed by his friend, the University denies the said fact.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tariq Rajwana, Legal Advisor of the respondent University. Now I find that the said rule 14 does provide for a semester break, however, for this break a student had to make an application to be considered by respondent No.2 Committee. The maximum period of the break is one year:
4. In view of the afore-noted admitted facts of the case and finding that the break in question is less than the maximum period provided in the said rule 14, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to file an application in terms of the said rule 14 and the same to be considered and decided by respondent No.2 Committee expeditiously, keeping in view all the attending circumstances of the case and it is hoped that the said jurisdiction will be exercised parentally. I find that some Officers of the respondent-University were ordered to appear in Court personally by my learned brother in seizing of the case, I am sure that this must have been done in view of the controversy involved in the W.P. which is akin to controversy between the parent and ward.
5. A copy of this order to be immediately remitted to respondents Nos. 1 and
2. F. B./M-135/L Order accordingly.