2001 PLP 1011 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑Regln. 37‑‑‑Educational institution‑‑Grace marks, grant of-‑‑Candidate had passed M.A. (English) Part I and Part ‑II, individually but there was shortage of four marks in the aggregate‑‑‑High Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, directed the University to place the case of the candidate before the Board of Examiners for decision in accordance with law‑‑‑Contention of the University was that the matter of grace marks was to be dealt with exclusively by the University Authorities and not by, the Board of Examiners‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Matter relating to the educational career of the candidate should be dealt with by the Board of Examiners in preference to the Executive Authority of the University‑‑‑Board of Examiners was independent body which was established and controlled by the University of the Punjab, therefore, there could be no legitimate objection to the entrustment of the matter to the Board. Muhammad Saleem Sheikh for Appellants. University of the Punjab, the appellant herein, being dissatisfied with the judgment, dated 22‑9‑2000, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 14993 of 2000, has filed this Intra‑Court Appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972.

2. Sajid Bin Nawaz, respondent herein, through the above Constitutional petition sought a declaration that he having appeared in M.A. (English) Examination Part‑I and Part‑II, held in 1995 and 1997 was individually successful in both parts, but due to shortage of four marks in aggregate, the University, without lawful authority withheld his degree. The respondents placing reliance on Regulation No.37 of the University Calendar contended that he was entitled to the grant of four grace marks either in Part‑I or Part‑II but unfortunately he was denied this legitimate right and in consequence thereto was refused grant of degree. The appellant in the comments, filed to the writ petition, took the plea that Regulation No.37 was not applicable in the case of the respondent as, it was only made applicable from Annual 1999 without retrospective effect. The learned Single Judge having attended the grievance of the respondent allowed the writ petition with the direction that the case of the respondent for the purpose of grace marks would be placed before the Board of Examiners for decision in accordance with law, and it would be open for the Board to also decide the question of applicability of Regulation No.37 to the respondent of not, and would also hear the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant, while repeating the stand taken by the University of the Punjab in the comments before the learned Single Judge, contended that the Regulation in question having no retrospective effect would not be applicable to the respondent, and therefore, he was not entitled to the benefit of the said Regulation and thus, the matter was neither required to be sent to the Board of Examiners nor it was the function of the Board of Examiners to frame the policy and decide such cases. He submitted that such matters are to be dealt with exclusively by the University Authorities and not by the Board of Examiners. The point being raised having been properly dealt with by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order needs no further comments. We, therefore, are of the considered view that the matter relating to the educational career of the respondent should be dealt with by the Board of Examiners in preference to the Executive Authority of the University. We may also observe that the Board of Examiners is an independent body which is established and controlled by the University of the Punjab, therefore, there can be no legitimate objection to the entrustment of the matter to the said Board. For the foregoing reasons, we having found no substance in this I.C.A., dismiss the same in limine. Q.M.H./M.A.K./U‑10/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.