2008 PLP 695 (CLC)
AYESHA IQBAL — Petitioner Versus BAHA-UD-DIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN through Vice-Chancellor and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 695 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AYESHA IQBAL — Petitioner Versus BAHA-UD-DIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN through Vice-Chancellor and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 695 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 695 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 695 (CLC) (AYESHA IQBAL — Petitioner Versus BAHA-UD-DIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN through Vice-Chancellor and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Petitioner was not allowed to sit in the final examination as she was declared to be deficient in lectures
Petitioner had referred two cases in which two candidates in the same session with the petitioner, who were also deficient in lectures, were allowed to sit in the examination
General principle of law, though was that every body was supposed to know relevant law and rules applicable to his case, but in the case of students, some relaxation could be granted to some of them
Teachers, at lest were required to intimate the others in the same set of circumstances to seek relief, if it was available under the law
Petitioner was never called upon by the concerned Authorities to make an application for the relief which was being considered for the others
High Court directed that let the petitioner, in circumstances make an application to Departmental Examination Committee where her case would be considered, keeping in view the principle of equality and would be treated as at par with the case of other two candidates
If the petitioner was found to be eligible to the relaxation, some special measures would be taken for her examination
Petitioner, in the meanwhile would continue her study in the Second Semester.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.
Petitioner is student of 1st Semester M.A. (English) Evening Session. She was declared to be deficient in lectures in the subject of study skills & Literary Forms and Movement (LFM), therefore, she was not allowed to sit in the final examination.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred two cases; one of Miss Sidra Parween and the other of Miss Hira Naz, who were also in the same session with the petitioner. They were also deficient in lectures but were allowed to sit in the examination, therefore, it is contended that petitioner was treated discriminately.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel of the University contends that the cited two examples of the students are distinguishable with the petitioner, inasmuch as, they had applied under Regulation 4(3) for the condonation of deficiency in lectures, which was in the domain of the Vice-Chancellor and the Chairman of the Department. Therefore, while exercising said powers condonation was granted to said two students, while petitioner never applied until the declaration of the result.
4. Be that as it may, although general principle of law is that everybody is supposed to know relevant law and rules applicable to his case but in the case of students if some relaxation is granted to some of them, at least the teachers are required to intimate the others in the same set of circumstances to seek such relief if it is available under the law. Admittedly, petitioner was never called upon by the concerned authorities to make an application for the relief which was being considered for the others. In the circumstances, let the petitioner make an application to Departmental Examination Committee, where her case will be considered keeping in view the principle of equality and shall be treated as at par as the case of Miss Sidra Parween and Hira Naz. If the petitioner is found to be eligible to the relaxation, some special measures shall be taken for her examination. However, in the meanwhile petitioner shall continue her studies in the 2nd semester. With this observation this petition stands disposed of. H.B.T./A-266/L Order accordingly.