2005 PLP 961 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents Date of hearing: 10th February, 2004. IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑This petition has been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 11‑11‑2003, whereby I.C.A. No.35 of 2003 filed by respondent University has been allowed as a result whereof judgment of the High Court in W.P. No.4824 of 2003, dated 18‑3‑2003 has been set aside.

2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that petitioner got admission in BBA Session 2000‑2002 comprising of four semesters in the respondent/University. He qualified the examination of 1st semester by securing 2.38 GPA (Grade Point Average) excluding one subject i.e. Micro‑Economics and 2nd semester by securing 2.23 (GPA) without taking examination of two subjects i.e. Computer Application and Business Communication. In the 1st semester he was promoted to 2nd semester on the basis of the cumulative grade point average being 2.38 (CGPA). In the 2nd semester he secured 2.23 (CGPA) despite of not qualifying examination in two subjects as noted above, he was promoted to 3rd semester. In the examination of 3rd semester, he obtained 1.89 (CGPA) against required 2.00 (CGPA) as such his name was removed from the roll by the University Authorities under the provisions of Regulation 8(F). It is to be noted that the respondent after promotion from 1st semester to 2nd semester applied to University to repeat Miscro Economics subject but he was not allowed to do so because the course of this subject was not available for want of requisite number (10 students) for the course. Similarly, after promotion from 2nd semester to 3rd semester he submitted another application to the University' for permission to allow him to repeat Micro‑Economics. Business Communication and Computer Application in Business Examination but permission was not accorded to him.

3. After removal of his name by respondent from the roll of University he preferred writ petition before the High Court which was allowed vide judgment, dated 18‑3‑2003. Feeling aggrieved from this judgment, the respondent‑University preferred an I.C.A., which has been allowed by means of impugned judgment, dated 11‑11‑2003 as such instant petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the University had an obligation to allow him to repeat the course of Micro‑Economics subject which he has dropped in 1st semester as well as examination in the Computer Application and Business Communication but the same was not allowed to him on account of which he could not obtain requisite (CGPA) in third semester. He further stated that if he is promoted to the 4th semester, he would be in a position to secure requisite CGPA i.e. 2.00 for the 3rd semester.

5. We have heard the learned counsel and have also gone through the relevant regulation. At the outset it may be noted that as far as the rules/regulations framed by the University Authorities for the purpose of conductive/regularizing examination etc. of University are concerned these are required to be interpreted by the University Authorities itself and Courts should avoid to interpret the same unless a case of grave injustice is not made out otherwise it would become difficult for University administration to run its internal affairs relating to examination, etc. Further, a perusal of Regulation 8(F) and its other parts clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was required to obtain (CGPA) independently in each semester for the purpose of promotion to the next semester. As it has been pointed out hereinabove that the petitioner did not obtain requisite (CGPA) in the 3rd semester i.e. 2.00 (CGPA) therefore. University Authorities in exercise of power conferred upon them under Regulation 8(F) rightly removed his name from the roll. The learned ICA Bench after examining the case of petitioner in depth reached to the conclusion that he was required to obtain 2.00 CGPA in the 3rd semester, therefore, his name was rightly removed from the roll of University as impugned judgment is just and legal, A therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Thus for the foregoing reasons petition is hereby dismissed. M. H./M‑102/S Petition dismissed.