2009 PLP 1180 (CLC)

HAMID FAROOQ DURRANI, J.

The petitioner is a student of Bachelors in Business Administration (BBA Honors) at the Institute of Management Sciences: respondent No.2. His third monthly examination of 6th semester was scheduled to commence on 27-10-2008 while the parents of petitioner met a road accident on the preceding day. Resultantly, his mother lost her life while the father sustained serious injuries. In the wake of said incident, the petitioner could not appear on the stipulated date to take the requisite papers. Subsequently, on 6-1-2008, he applied to the Institute/respondent No.2 for arranging examination for him which was missed due to the tragic happening. The said request of petitioner was, however, not acceded to which 'necessitated a legal notice on the part of petitioner. The same was accordingly sent on 4-12-2008. The notice so issued remained unresponded, therefore, the petitioner moved this Court in constitutional jurisdiction for the purpose.

2. The petition in hand has been preferred mainly on the grounds that petitioner had been denied the opportunity of taking his examination which remained unattended due to act of God and the reason therefor was beyond the control of petitioner. It is also noted therein that the inaction on the part of respondents had culminated into denial of right of petitioner in competing with his class-mates as the passing of requisite exam/test, in parts, shall have obvious adverse effects on his grade point average.

3. The respondents were put on notice through order, dated 10-2-2009 in pursuance whereof Syed Mabood Gul Kakakhel, Project Director of respondent No.2 made his appearance, besides, furnishing parawise comments to the writ petition.

4. We have heard today learned counsel for petitioner as well as the representative of respondents who mainly relied on the fact that the petitioner could have conveniently attended the, remaining part of examination after "Qul" of his mother on 27-10-2008 and thereafter. It was also reiterated that there was no provision in the rules for granting permission or arranging re-examination of a student, therefore, the request of petitioner could not be acceded to. It was also pressed into service that the petitioner previously missed examination for three courses in the first monthly examination and one course in the second monthly examination. The "rules and regulations" of the respondent/ institute were also referred to, wherein, it is, inter alia, noted that no make up examination will be allowed in any course in any circumstances". We have gone through the available record including the portion of rules referred to by representative of respondents as well as the reply to the rejoinder provided today by Mr. Kakakhel. We observe that in response to allegation of petitioner regarding discriminatory treatment having been meted out to him, at least three cases of re-examination/re test were explained through the said reply. In respect of one case pertaining to Lawangeen Wali, it was noted that initially he was debarred from appearing in the examination on account of short attendance in two courses while in pursuance to a representation by the student, rechecking of relevant record was carried out. The said re-examination divulged that the requisite attendance level was met by him, therefore, he was allowed to appear in re-examination for the, courses. Similarly, in respect of student Muhammad Asim. Khan, it was explained that the student was to appear before ISSB at Kohat from 18-2-2006 to 21-2-2006, therefore, he was allowed to appear in the evening along with other examinees for two papers which he could not attend due to ISSB test.

5. It is the last mentioned case of Muhammad Asim Khan which prompts us to hold that the petitioner was extended discriminatory treatment by the respondents although his case for re-test was at much stronger footings than that of Muhammad Asim Khan. It is not conceivable for a prudent mind that a student missing his examination due to sudden demise of his parent could be dubbed to have deliberately abstained from appearing in test on the notified dates.

6. We also deem it necessary to mention here that an educational institution is meant not only to impart formal education to the students admitted therein but is alongside expected to facilitate the building up career potentials for the pupils. The rules of discipline/business chalked out for the purpose of carrying out daily chores of Institution are, therefore, not to be construed in the strictest possible sense so that a case of total hardship, like the one in hand, is also pushed against the wall. Needless to state that the representative of respondents frankly conceded the casting of adverse effects on the G.P.A. of petitioner in case requisite re-examination was disallowed to him. In the above view of the matter and also owing to the fact that the respondent/institute is a creature of Statute (Institute of Management Sciences Ordinance, 2002) we, not only entertain the petition in hand but admit and allow the same hereby. Resultantly, the respondents are required to arrange the requisite re-test of petitioner within 20 days from today. H.B.T./133/P Petition allowed.