2006 PLP 913 (MLD)

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.

This judgment shall decide Writ Petition No.6618 and Writ Petition No.6617 of 2004 as common questions are involved.

2. The petitioners in both these cases were admitted to BBA Class Sessions 2000-2002. This was a morning programme to be completed in two years comprising four semesters. During the course of the said semesters, both of them ultimately failed in the subject of Statiscial Inferences. However, under the University Regulations, they were promoted to MBA Class. It is then stated in both these petitions that the petitioners could not clear the said subject as the respondent failed to offer the said course because of lack of quorum which was of 10 students whereas only 6 students were available. The grievance being made out in both the writ petitions was that they are not being allowed to take the MBA 4th semester examination. Both the petitions came up on 13-12-2004 when a pre-admission notice was issued and the respondents were directed to allow them to sit in the said examination. These petitions were admitted to regular hearing on 31-1-2005. Notice was accepted and a written statement has been filed. In the written statement, the position taken is that the petitioners were, in fact, offered two chances available to them but they failed to pass in the said subject.

2. Mr. M. Amir Bhatti, Advocate leading the arguments in both these cases while conceding that two chances were made available refers to the relevant statute to urge that they are entitled to clear the said subject in one year comprising two semesters and this period of time commences after the completion of the four semesters whereas one of the chances was given before the expiry of the said four semesters. Malik Tariq Rajwana, Advocate/learned counsel for the respondent-University, on the other hand, urges that, in the first instance, two chances were, in fact, given to the petitioners and one such chance, of course, during the pendency of the original four semesters. He, however, further contends that one more chance even was given to the petitioners in view of the said grievance and further in view of the interim orders of this Court and whereas Imran Siddique petitioner has passed the said subject, Syed Khurram Shahzad had not been able to do so.

4. Mr. M. Khalid Farooq, Advocate, counsel for Syed Khurram Shahzad petitioner explains that so far as his client is concerned, the said chance was given but the date sheet was so made that on the same day he had to appear in an examination of MBA Class and also of the examination in the said subject of BBA Class. Nevertheless he made all efforts and appeared in both the examinations. However, whereas he passed the MBA examination he could not pass the BBA examination. According to him, in view of the said peculiar circumstances, the University itself had shown grace and he has been permitted to appear in the forthcoming BBA examination of the said subject.

5. I have given some consideration to the said respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. A copy of the amended statute has been appended by the respondent as R.I. to their written statement. It is as follows: "BBA graduates from the Department of Business Administration are entitled for admission to MBA provided they have minimum CGPA of 2.2. Students failing in one course may be granted provisional admission to MBA. They will, however, have to remove the deficiency in one year and attain the minimum CGPA of 2.2. in BBA before admission to MBA is confirmed."

6. Now upon a plain reading of the said amended statute student failing in one course may be granted provisional admission to MBA. Now this admission is possible only upon completion of the original four semesters and, in fact, there is no dispute that the admission was granted B to the petitioners in the MBA Class upon completion of the four semesters of BBA. This being so, Mr. Amir Bhatti, Advocate, has very correctly argued that the one year period comprising two semesters has to commence from this point of time.

7. So far as Muhammad Imran Siddiq is concerned, there is no dispute that he has already removed the said deficiency within the time span provided in the said amended statute.

8. In the matter of Khurram Shahzad petitioner it has not been controverted that the second available chance coincided with the date of examination of MBA Class as well and because of this special circumstance he has to avail the final available chance in the forthcoming BBA examination in the said subject.

9. In view of the aforenoted admitted state of affairs and upon the interpretation placed by me on the said statute, Writ Petition No.6618 of 2004 filed by Muhammad Imran Siddiq petitioner allowed and it is C hereby declared that he has removed the deficiency and consequently is entitled to complete his MBA programme in accordance with University Regulations.

10. In the matter of Writ Petition No.6617 of 2004 filed by Syed Khurram Shahzad, the same is disposed of with the observation that in case the petitioner Khurram Shahzad passes the said examination and removes the deficiency in the last and final chance given to him by appearing in the forthcoming BBA examination, the writ petition shall stand accepted. However, in case he fails in the said examination, the writ petition shall stand dismissed without any orders as to costs. H.B.T./M-1237/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.