' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner was admitted as a student of B.Sc. (Honours) for the session 2000-2001 in the University of Punjab, Quaid-e-Azam Campus, Lahore and secured first position in three Semesters and was awarded scholarship as the best student of B.Sc. (Honours). The petitioner appeared in the final Semester and obtained Highest Marks 80.04 per cent and G.P.A. Was determined as 3.79. The respondents declared following candidates by awarding First,Second and Third position, who secured less marks from the petitioner:--
(i) Samia Zafar;
(ii) Joveria Rafiq;
(iii) Ifra Hafeez.
' The petitioner appeared in semester "I" and secured 77.62% marks. The petitioner appeared in the second semester in only one paper and secured 21 marks but she could not appear in the second semester in other papers on the ground of illness. The respondents arranged special examination of the petitioner and the petitioner appeared in the special examination held by the respondents of the remaining two papers and the petitioner secured 84 and 89 marks. The petitioner was promoted by the respondents under the rules in spite of the fact that she could not clear the two papers of second semester in accordance with the regulation of the respondents. The petitioner appeared in the third semester and passed the same and thereafter the petitioner appeared in subsequent semester and finally in the final examination. The petitioner secured highest marks in the merit list but the respondents did not declare the petitioner and award gold medal. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not appear in the two papers of the II-Semester on the grolmd of illness and the respondents allowed her to appear in the special examination arranged by the respondents and the petitioner has passed the same securing highest marks but the respondents mala fide did not award the gold medal to the petitioner. In fact the petitioner has passed all the examinations held by the respondents with distinction but on account of internal rifts between the professors the petitioner is penalized. He further submits that stand of the respondents that the petitioner has not passed the examination by parts is not correct in view of Regulation No,15 of the respondents which is to the following effect:-- "Incomplete Grade on Medical Ground: In case a candidate is unable to appear in part or whole of the Final Examination of a Semester on medical grounds, he may be allowed to appear in the Special Final Examination to be arranged by the Department/ Institute/College, provided;
(i) he fulfils the condition of having attended the prescribed number of lectures as laid down in Regulation 6(2).
(ii) He is admitted as patient in a recognized Hospital, or if he/she is not hospitalized, as defined above, the candidate will be examined by the University Medical Board comprising Chief Medial Officer and one Medical Officer of the University.
' Such a candidate shall be given incomplete Grade (`I' Grade). He shall be required to appear in the Special Final Examination of the Semester to be held within two weeks from the commencement of the next semester.
(iii) If a candidate does not fulfil the conditions laid down above will be considered fail and will be treated as rule No,5.2.
' The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that this fact was not denied by the respondents that the petitioner has secured highest marks qua the other candidates and the petitioner is not awarded gold medal merely on the ground that the petitioner did not pass the examination in the first attempt, which is not in consonance with the Regulation of the respondents mentioned above.
3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that the petitioner appeared in the second semester only in one paper and secured 21 marks whereas the petitioner did not appear in the remaining two papers, therefore, the petitioner was declared failed as is evident from Annex-II attached with the report and parawise comments of the respondents. The petitioner was allowed to appear in the Special Examination in terms of Regulations of the respondents and the petitioner passed the two papers in Special Examination held by the respondents. The respondents have prepared the merit list in terms of the regulation of the respondent and the petitioner's name is on merit list at Serial No,10. She further submits that action of the respondents is in accordance with the regulation of the respondents which is attached with the report and parawise comments as Annex-VII according to which the petitioner has to pass all the examinations of the concerned course in first attempt whereas the petitioner has not passed all the examinations in the first attempt as the petitioner has passed the second examination in two attempts.
4. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that action of the respondents is based on mala fide and is not in consonance with Regulation No,15.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
6. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the basic facts in chronological order along with the rules and regulations of the respondents to resolve the controversy between the parties:--
(i) The petitioner appeared in the second semester in one paper and the relevant entry is as follows as is evident from Annex-II:-- MarksGradeGPMarksGradeGP 40 D 1.021 F 00
(ii) The petitioner appeared in the Special Examination held by the respondents and the petitioner secured the following marks as is evident from Annex-III ZoologyZoology 1205(3)1206(1)
Marks GP Marks GP 84 A 4.0 89 A 4.0 REGULATIONS UNDER-GRADUATE SEMESTER STUDIES "Incomplete Grade on Medical Grounds: In case a candidate is unable to appear in part or whole of the Final Examination of a Semester on medical grounds, he may be allowed to appear in the Special Final Examination to be arranged by the Department/ Institute/College, provided:
(i) He fulfils the condition of having attended the prescribed number of lectures as laid down in Regulation 6(2).
(ii) He is admitted as patient in a recognized Hospital, or if he/she is not hospitalized, as defined above, the candidate will be examined by the University Medical Board comprising Chief Medical Officer and one Medical Officer of the University.
Such a candidate shall be given incomplete Grade (1" Grade). He shall be required to appear in the Special Final Examination of the Semester to be held within two weeks from the commencement of the next semester.
(iii) If a candidate does not fulfil the conditions laid down above will be considered fail and will be treated as rule # 5.2.
M.Sc (lions)
Session 2003-2004 Merit list S. No.R. No.Name Matric 1/4
1. Zol-1Saima Zafar 173.5
2. Zol-2Ifraa Hafeez 146
3. Zol-3Sana Sikandar 168.25
4. Zol-4Javeria Rafiq 168
5. Z01-5Hafiz Abdullah Shakir145.5
6. Zol-5Khaula Ahmed 155
7. Zol-7Shaukat Ali 157.25
8. Zol-8Asif Ali 154
9. Z01-9Hufsa Jamshaid 152.5 10.Zol-10Romeeza Tahir 140.75 F.Sc. 1/5B.Sc. (Hons) 1/6Hfiz QuranNCCAggregate 148.8 79.13 20421.43 157.4 77.90 20401.3 147.8 76.81 392.86 146.4 78.11 392.51 148.6 68.23 20382.33 156 71.02 382.02 141 71.92 370.17 147 66.26 367.26 135.2 76.44 364.14 135.4 80.04 356.19 ' M.A./M.Sc. (Hons.) Semester Studies
(v) For the award of Gold Medal or some other award the 1st position will be calculated on OPM (Overall Percentage Marks) basis of the whole course of M.A./M.Sc. (Hons.) degree.
(vi) For the award of Gold Medal, role of honours and all other distinctions of Punjab University, a student must have passed all the examinations of the concerned course in first attempt.
' In case the aforesaid facts are put in a juxta position then it is crystal clear that the petitioner has not passed Semester-II in one attempt coupled with the fact that the competent authority has framed special regulation for grant of gold medal. It is settled principle of law that special regulation excludes the geperal regulation as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- 'Zia-ur-Rehman's case (PLD 1973 SC 49)
' Mian Nawaz Sharif's case (PLD 1993 SC 473)
' As the special regulation prescribes specific condition that the petitioner must have passed all the examinations of the concerned course in first attempt. The petitioner fails to fulfil the specific condition laid down in the special regulation mentioned above. It is settled principle of law that for the purpose of maintaining the Constitution petition, it is the duty and obligation of the petitioner to show that the action of the respondents is in derogation of the rules and regulations of the respondents. The petitioner fails to bring her case within the parameters of the regulations of the respondents, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ali Mir's case (1984 SCM R 433).
' In view of what has been discussed above, I do not find any merit in this petition, therefore, writ petition is dismissed.