2004 PLP 1375 (YLR)
MURID HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN through Vice‑Chancellor and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1375 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zafar Yasin, J |
| Parties | MURID HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN through Vice‑Chancellor and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1375 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1375 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Zafar Yasin, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1375 (YLR) (MURID HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN through Vice‑Chancellor and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Noor Ahmad Khan Meo for Petitioner.
- Malik Muhammad Tariq Rajwana for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition Educational institutions‑‑‑Grace marks, grant of‑‑‑Vested right of petitioner‑‑ Petitioner after passing L. L. B. Examination had taken examination of Diploma in Taxation Law (D.T.L.) and he was short of 3 marks to make out the overall aggregate marks‑‑‑Grievance of the petitioner was that the University authorities had illegally denied the grant of three grace marks to him‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Diploma in Taxation Law was governed by Regulations of D.T.L. examination notified of 20‑6‑7988, and in the Regulations there was no provision of grace marks for D.T.L. candidate‑‑‑Act of University authorities refusing to grant three grace marks to the petitioner in D.T.L. Paper II was not void and without lawful authority‑‑‑No vested right of the petitioner having been denied, therefore, High Court declined to interfere in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Petition was dismissed in circumstance's.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Muhammad Tariq Rajwana for Respondents. Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has prayed that direction be issued to the respondent/B.Z. University for grant of 3 grace marks to the petitioner in Paper 2 of D.T.L. Examination.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner after passing his LL.B. Examination, appeared in D.T.L. Examination under Roll No. 13 for the Session 1999‑2000. The petitioner secured 54/100 in Paper I, 42/100 in Paper II and 45/ 100 in Paper III. However, the petitioner has been declared as fail as a whole, in the D.T.L. Examination on the ground that he has secured 42 marks in Paper 11 while he was required to secure minimum 45 marks.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Regulation No.5 of B.Z. University notified on 18‑2‑1997, B.Z. University awards up to 5 grace marks to LL.B. student who is failing by 5 marks in any one paper. Thus, the petitioner is also entitled to the same as the D.T.L. Examination is legitimate child of LL.B. Examination, because only a person he has passed LL.B. Examination, he can take D.T.L. Examination after attending the classes.
4. The respondent has filed report and parawise comments. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has argued that in fact for D.T.L. Examination separate Regulations have been notified vide notification dated 20‑6‑1988. According to the D.T.L. Examination Regulations, there is no provision for award of grace marks to a candidate who takes T. D. L. Examination. Hence, the petitioner has rightly been refused grant of three grace marks.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. No doubt a person who has passed LL.B. Examination, only he can take, D.T.L. Examination but D.T.L. course is a specialization and the D.T.L. Examination is governed by Regulations of D.T.L. Examination notified on 20‑6‑1988, Annexure R‑I. There is no, provision of grace marks for D.T.L. candidate. Hence the act of respondent refusing to grant three grace marks to the petitioner in D.T.L. Paper II cannot be declared as void and without lawful authority in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction by this Court.
7. In the circumstances, as no right vested in the petitioner has been denied, hence, no case for interference in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction has been, made out. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. M.H./M‑121/L Petition dismissed.