P L D 1994 Lahore 9 (PLP)

The petitioner, who joined M.Sc. Computer Sciences Course, run by the Quaid‑e‑Azam University, Islamabad, passed the first semester, securing 12 `Credit Hours'. He was declared unsuccessful in the second semester held in September, 1992, as he could secure only 9 `Credit Hours'. Third semester was held in February, 1993, and he passed in only three subjects. In the event of failure, under the University Regulations, made effective from 2‑2‑1992, a student could avail of one more chance by way of concession. If a student could not appear or succeed in the terminal examination, in a particular course, on medical ground or for any other reason, he/she was to be treated as absent and unsuccessful. The petitioner, on failure in the subject of Numerical Analysis, in the second semester, had availed of one additional chance. Having secured less than 12 `credits', in 3rd semester, he has been declared as having failed, and resultantly he ceases to be a student of the University, and will not be entitled to go in for the 4th semester, on attending the classes. For the same reason, he has not been assigned any computer project, which is a precondition for doing M. Sc. He will also not be allowed to repeat the courses, in which he has failed.

2. According to the petitioner he has a long history of being a patient of epilepsy and has been under treatment of a renowned Neuro‑Surgeon, Maj: General Nisar Muhammad Khan, who had advised him rest for 3 weeks, during the period when the third semester examination was being held, as he had suffered from serious epileptic fits, immediately before start of the examination. He could not prepare well and failed in certain papers. Under Regulation 4(b), no ground, including illness, is entertained by the University for showing any concession to a student, who is unable to appear in an exam. owing to illness, or any other `emergency', say, death of even a nearest relative.

3. Submission is that Regulation 4(b) is absolutely unreasonable and is liable to be quashed, as it presupposes that every medical certificate must be fake or fictitious, and it excludes very genuine cases even. It is maintained that all legal provisions, rules and regulations 'must be intelligible, rational and realistic, and ought to have nexus with rules of reasonableness, equity, justice and fair-play, and must not bring, in wake of their application, injustice, harshness and hardship. As against Regulations of 1981, since superseded, the 1992 Regulations have been so framed that students are treated like chattels, criminals or suspects, and an absolutely unfair treatment is meted out to them. Under the earlier Regulations, a medical certificate issued by even a private medical practitioner was acceptable, if countersigned by the University Medical Officer, but that clause of concession has been dispensed with, with no valid justification. In the event of failure, by reason of illness during two weeks preceding a particular examination, a student, under the old Regulations, used to be given a make‑up examination, within two weeks following that examination. This concession is however no longer available. Attention 'is invited to Article 25 of the Constitution, in urging that the petitioner is entitled to a fair treatment and a soft attitude by the University Authorities, in the interest of his educational career. Reliance is placed on 1991 SCMR 1041, IA. Sherwani etc. v. Government of Pakistan and others, which case however is wholly distinguishable. It was a case of sub‑classification within the class of pensioners, based on no intelligible differentia. Treatment given to a particular class of pensioners was not the same as accorded to others, and it amounted to discrimination and was treated as violative of Article 25 of the Constitution, In the instant case, all the students are now being governed by 1992 Regulations and it cannot be said that different classes or groups of students are not being treated alike. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to sections 28 and 29, University of Islamabad Act, 1973, in urging, and rightly so, that the disputed Regulations have been framed or amended by a competent authority in a regular or lawful manner. Even in the authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner it has been observed that there is always a presumption in favour of constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon the person who attacks it to show that there has been an infringement or transgression of Constitutional principles. In invoking Article 25 of the Constitution the aggrieved person must make out that he has been treated differently from others, similarly circumstanced, without any reasonable basis. It must be presumed that a legislature or a body framing certain rules understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people or subjects and is aware of their problems, and endeavours to solve the same in the light of the past experience and the present day needs, and takes care of general welfare and future orientation of that particular segment of society, falling within its domain.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the petitioner had unfortunately not come up to the mark, had lagged behind others and had not even informed the concerned quarters about his illness. He is now trying to take advantage of his spurious or genuine disability, after having appeared in the examination and not being lucky in getting through. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to make out a case as to how the petitioner has been accorded any unequal, unfair or hostile treatment in the matter of his disqualification. He has not even been successful in establishing his assertion that it is a discriminating or inhumane legislation, designed to perpetrate or perpetuate injustice to the students. It may be reiterated that application of the Regulation in question or the treatment given to the petitioner is the same for all the students and the petitioner has not been dealt with discriminately or arbitrarily and he therefore cannot make any grievance on that count. No particular effort has been made by the learned counsel to show as to how Regulation 4(b) has been enacted without lawful authority and as to why on the mere asking of the petitioner 1992 Regulations should be deleted and more favourable Regulations of 1981 be made applicable to the petitioner's case. Room for interference with such matters, in exercise of extraordinary Constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court, is also limited; and this Court find itself wholly disinclined to admit the petition and to afford to the petitioner any measure of relief, in the matter. The petition is dismissed. AA./M‑1165/1 Petition dismissed