1997 PLP 280 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑ Petitioner appearing in Bachelor of Education Examination in 2nd Annual Examination, 1990‑91 had secured 33 per cent. marks in specific paper and thus, was declared "Fail", for at that time he was required to get 40 per cent marks for passing the examination‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petitioner's main contention was that on basis of equitable treatment he was entitled to be declared having passed the examination, for he had secured 33 per cent. marks‑‑‑Petitioner had appeared in earlier examination while scheme was introduced afterwards whereby marks were reduced from 40 per cent. to 33 per cent. ‑‑‑Petitioner having appeared in 2nd Annual Examination 1990‑91 was required to have secured 40 per cent. marks on account of previous scheme being applicable‑‑‑Fresh scheme was introduced for the year 1992‑93 when fresh candidates were required to secure 33 per cent. marks‑‑‑Reduced criteria of pass percentage was not applicable to petitioner and thus, no Constitutional right of petitioner stood infringed/violated and thus he was not entitled to the required and desired relief‑‑‑New Scheme of reduced percentage could not have retrospective effect so as to cover case of petitioner‑‑‑Constitutional petition having no merit was dismissed. Muhammad Irshad Khan for Appellant. Mirza Manzoor Ahmad for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th June, 1996. Muhammad Akbar petitioner appeared in Bachelor of Education 2nd Annual Examination, 1990‑91 held in November, 1992 under the auspices of Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan under Roll No.3271. He was declared as 'Fail' as he had secured 33 % marks in paper "Teaching of English" while in other subjects he had secured 47% marks in aggregate. In the Bachelor of Education Examination for the year 1992‑93 for the paper of "Teaching of English" marks of the paper were mentioned 100 but pass marks for the same were mentioned as 33 % for fresh candidates and 40 % for compartment candidates. Since the percentage of pass marks in the abovesaid paper for fresh candidates and for compartment candidates was different, which was considered as discriminatory act of the respondents, the compartment candidates appearing in that Examination who could not secure 40 % marks filed writ petitions for getting declared the above act of respondents as discriminatory, un- Constitutional, against Injunctions of Islam and for issuance of direction to the respondents for equal treatment with all the candidates. That writ petition was dealt with by my learned brother Mr. Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J. who passed the order for the Vice‑Chancellor, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan to consider favourably the case of all the writ petitioners for the application of reduced criteria to them. The worthy Vice‑Chancellor, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan favourably considered the cases of the compartment candidates and declared those candidates as having passed who has secured 33% marks. Expressing that he is entitled to the same treatment, Muhammad Akbar petitioner has filed this writ petition to get an order passed to the effect that he was entitled to the benefit of reduced criteria of 33 % marks in paper of "Teaching of English" as has been applied in the cases of other so many candidates whose writ petitions were decided. It is contended by the petitioner that he is entitled to the equitable treatment and no discrimination should be afforded to him. In the parawise comments the stand was taken by the respondents that the petitioner's case fell under the previous scheme of studies which required 40 % pass marks and that the fresh scheme was introduced afterwards, the benefit of which can neither be derived nor is available to the petitioner.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record before me. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the basis of the equitable treatment the petitioner is entitled to be declared having passed the Examination as he secured 33 % marks in paper "Teaching of English". I do not agree with him. The important aspect of the matter which has stolen the eminence, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, is that the petitioner has appeared in the earlier Examination while the scheme was introduced afterwards whereby the marks were reduced from 40 % to 33 % . The petitioner appeared in Bachelor of Education 2nd Annual Examination, 1990‑91 when the previous scheme of studies which required 40 % pass marks was applicable. The fresh scheme in the matter was introduced for the year 1992‑93 when the fresh candidates were required to secure 33 % pass marks and the compartment candidates had to secure 40% pass marks. This discrimination in two categories of candidates examined on the basis of the same question paper was challenged and has been given the weight by the Authorities of Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan. This convenience has been afforded to the candidates who appeared in the Bachelor of Education Examination for the year 1992‑93 and not to .the candidates who appeared in the Bachelor of Education Examination for the year 1990‑

91. In this view of the matter the reduced criteria of pass percentage was not applicable to Muhammad Akbar petitioner and thus no Constitutional right of the petitioner stands infringed/violated who, as such, is not entitled to the required and desired relief.

3. If the weight is granted to the averments made by him that would be nothing but opening of pandora's box for all the candidates appearing prior to examination for the year 1992‑93 falling under the category of Muhammad Akbar petitioner who may have secured 33 % marks of above but less than 40 % marks. It is not the intention of law, rules and regulations. The new scheme introduced by the Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan in the matter cannot have the retrospective effect so as to cover the case of Muhammad Akbar petitioner. Thus I have no option but to hold that this petition has no merit.

4. For what has been said above, I dismiss this writ petition with costs. A.A./M‑97/L Petition dismissed.