2011 PLP 211 (CLC)

RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.

The petitioner has assailed the vires of order dated 17-3-2010, passed by the respondents whereby his withdrawal was accorded from Bachelor in Engineering (E.E.) at the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad. It is stated that he was selected on merits and joined classes on 28-9-2009 in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering but on an application, was allowed to join the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences on 12-10-2009. It is stated that the period of more than 15 days was spent on approval of transfer and at the time of his joining the new classes, the initial lectures and classes had already been conducted. The final examinations of the first semester were held between 1-2-2010 to 6-2-2010 and he secured Grade Point Average (GPA) of 1.00 and Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) of 1.00 as well. It is alleged that the respondent No.3 issued letter dated 3-2-2010 whereby he was withdrawn from the University and was directed to arrange clearance. It was contended that in case of the GPA between 1.00 and 1.50, the student may be relegated or withdrawn but relegation being lesser punishment should have been awarded and the withdrawal was un called for. It is stated that one week prior to the examination he suffered an attack of acute malaria and his- ailment in addition to loss of lectures/class in first 15 days, which was result of late approval of the transfer, was the reason of his low GPA and as such withdrawal is un just and the respondents have failed to act in accordance with law and Regulations.

2. The respondents contested the petition on merits and legal grounds. It was contended that the petitioner failed to meet the highest standard of NUST. It is urged that the university is not governed by the statutory Rules so the writ petition is not maintainable. It is also urged that withdrawal was approved by a committee comprising of senior members of faculty headed by DG, SECS in terms of regulation No. 45 of the NUST (Academic Programmes) Regulations, 2005 and the said committee was best fudge to determine the fitness of a student for continuation of studies in NUST. It is contended that the regulations were framed by the competent authority and have to be followed in letter and spirit. In support of contentions raised reliance is placed on 2005 YLR 737, 2004 YLR 801, 1992 SCMR 1093 and PLD 1984 SC 170.

3. The copy of minutes of the meeting of the committee held on 12-3-2010 shows that an order of withdrawal was passed against the petitioner on attaining GPA of 1.00 in the first semester. A student with GPA 1.00 in first semester can be awarded one of two penalties i.e. relegation under Regulation No. 44 or withdrawal under Regulation No.45 of the Regulations ibid. It is an established interpretation as approved by the superior Courts that whenever two interpretations of the Ordinance, rules or regulation is possible, the interpretation favouring the subject should be applied instead of one favouring the authority. In this respect reliance is placed on case law reported as 2006 MLD 25, 2006 MLD 30, 1999 CLC 1557 and PLD 1978 SC

61. The contention that it was the prerogative of the faculty to decide as to which regulation is applicable is absolutely ill founded. It is not a matter of discretion simpliciter rather the concerned authorities should have kept in view that future of a Youngman with brilliant academic record was at stake. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the rules were framed and forwarded to the government and the same have not been notified and as such the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked. Under section 22(2) of the National University of Sciences and Technology, Act, 1977, the Board of Governors is empowered to approve the recommendations of the committee. The SRO (I) of 2005 issued in June, 2005 shows that the NUST (Academic Programms) Regulations, 2005 were made by the Board of Governors and were duly notified. These regulations are, therefore, binding and any deviation therefrom may be agitated by the aggrieved party in the High Court through a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Courts and all those responsible for administration of justice should strive to achieve ends of justice and one should not be non suited in the name of technicalities. In this respect reliance is placed on 2008 CLC 766, PLD 2007 SC 271 and PLD 1997 SC 823.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at bar that the rules have been made by the executive committee and have been forwarded to the government after approval of Board of Governors. Under section 23 of Act XX of 1997, the rules may be framed for implementation of statute or regulations. The regulations on the subject have been approved by the Board of Governors under the law and have been duly notified as already mentioned supra so the contention that the writ petition is not maintainable is devoid of force. It is a matter of life and future of a young student, who got the admission on merits. The committee could have passed one of the two punishments i.e., relegation or withdrawal. The withdrawal is too harsh as it not only adversely affects the student but his family will also be put to endless agony. The members of the' committee should have exercised their discretion with benevolence. We have to ensure that as for as possible the youth should not be put to the state of disappointment/dejection and an opportunity should be provided to the young students to become useful members of this society. In order to get best out of them, they should be counselled, admonished, relegated and then finally withdrawn, if so required. The impugned order cannot be left unnoticed only in the name of administrative policy, which provides for lesser punishment at the same time.

5. For the reasons supra, the writ petition is accepted. The respondents are directed to relegate the petitioner and allow him to continue his studies. Of course if he fails to achieve required standards in second semester or subsequently, the powers under regulation 45 may be exercised for any one of the reasons mentioned in part `B' thereof. M.U.Y./D-18/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.