' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.---The petitioners by filing this constitutional petition are seeking direction in the names of the respondents to allow them to attend the classes of 3rd semester as they had secured the required CGPA in the 2nd semester according to prospectus of year, 2004- 2005.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners were admitted on merit in B.Sc. (Hons.)
Agriculture in Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan for the Session 2004-2005, comprising of 4 years semester system examination. According to the prospectus the course was designed keeping in view the agricultural potential and special ecological conditions of the region. The programme of studies for B.Sc. (Hons.) Degree in Agriculture of four years duration being run under the semester system of examination. The petitioners qualified first semester obtaining the required CGPA and were promoted to the 2nd semester. However, in the 2nd semester, they could not secure CGPA up to of 50% and also for not passing prescribed number of papers, their names were struck off from the roll of the University.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset stated that writ petition to the extent of petitioner No.3 shall be deemed to be dismissed as withdrawn as he has left the University and has joined another University; he is no more interested in pursuing the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the examination system, printed in the prospectus 2004-2005 provided by the respondents, it is mentioned that in order to complete a course successfully, the petitioners were required to obtain at least 40% marks each in theory and practical separately. According to regulations published in the said prospectus 40 to 49% marks falling in Grade D, Value 1 would be deemed to be passed. Since the petitioners were having obtained more than 40% marks are entitled to sit in the 3rd semester. Further submits that, any change, made in the rules and regulations after admission in the above said course are not applicable to the petitioners, who were given admission according to the rules and regulations printed in prospectus 2004-2005. Any change in the regulations without notice to the petitioners is not applicable to them and they are to be governed by the rules and regulations published in prospectus 20042005. The petitioners had acquired a vested right and legitimate expectations for their promotion to the next semester on the basis of rules mentioned in the prospectus 20042005.
Reliance is placed on Tahmasub Faraz Tayyab and others v. University of Health Sciences and others PLD 2005 Lah.261. Any subsequent change brought vide prospectus 2005-2006 shall not effected the rights, of the petitioners which they had earned by obtaining 40% marks (0.5) to qualify for the 3rd semester. Further submits that the rules and regulations said to have been notified on 14-6-2004 were neither made available to the petitioners at the time of admission, nor mentioned in the said prospectus of 2004. Since the rules were not known or published thus the same are not applicable o the petitioners. Further submits that, to rectify the mistake the University, while publishing prospectus 2005, mentioned at page 81 under the head 'Uniform Semester Rules' that; "Uniform Semester Rules as notified vide No.99 Acad/Sem/Regu/3176, Dated 14-6-2004 and subsequent amendments made by the Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan from time to time are applicable herewith". It is further mentioned that, copy of the same is available in the office of Principal, University College of Agriculture, whereas, in the prospectus 2004 at page 70 under the head of 'B.Sc. Agriculture Engineering (4-years course), it is mentioned that "the statute, regulations and syllabus for B.Sc. Agriculture Engineering (4 years course) are available with the University College of Agriculture". Uniform Semester Rules, notified Vide No.99 Acad/Sem/Regu/3176, dated 14-6-2004 said to have been confirmed/regulated on 14-6-2004 were neither made available nor it is mentioned in the syllabus that students shall be governed by grading system mentioned in the said rules. Further submits that grading system mentioned in the Uniform Semester Rules 2004 are totally different from those mentioned at page 68 of prospectus 2004. The student, who falls in Grade-D value 1 obtaining 40 to 49% marks was declared to be passed entitling him to be promoted to the next semester, whereas in the regula0oith winch were not made available and said to have been printed on 14-6-2004, it is mentioned that, the student who will obtain more than 50% marks shall be deemed to have clear this semester and will be promoted to the next semester.
The very vast difference in the two grading mentioned in the regulation, dated 14-6-2004 and in prospectus 2004 are totally alien to each other. The petitioners at the time of admission, after examining the prospectus applied for admission and are entitled to be regulated by the rules and regulations printed in prospectus 2004 and not by prospectus 2005, wherein grade point average had been totally changed keeping in view Uniform Semester Rules, dated 14-6-2004.
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents argues that, the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners are totally in conflict with rules, regulations and law laid down by the superior Courts on the subject. The questions, whether the University authorities can bring any amendment for change in the grading rules and regulations for conducting examination and grading system. The said amendments for the principle of natural justice are supposed to be notified to the students. The Uniform Semester Rules and Regulations published on 14-6-2004 were in operation and it was for the petitioners to go through the statute, regulations, and syllabus, which was available with the University of Agriculture, at the time of their admissions, as mentioned at page 70 of prospectus 2004. Further submits that in the case of the petitioners, the amendment in the regulations was made prior to the examination of 2nd semester and it was duly notified on the college notice board, thus the petitioners cannot take refuge on the pretext that the amendment so made in the regulation was not properly notified to the students and they are not in knowledge of the same. It was the duty of thq students to inquire about the change made in the regulations. Uniform Semester Rules were in the field on the day when the petitioners got admission in the University and they are to be governed by the same rules. Further submits that; if there is any error or omission in the prospectus, the hands of University authorities are not tied down, as they cannot bring any change in the rules, before the said examination, the notice of change was duly given to the students by affixing the same on the notice board. The petitioners were promoted to 2nd semester through notification, keeping in view the hardship, by showing grace. Thus the petitioners were in knowledge that the rules and regulations have been changed and they are supposed to obtain more than 50% marks entitling them to be promoted to the next semester. The second notification brought change in the rules and regulations was duly published and placed upon notice board of the college prior to holding of the examination for 2nd semester. Relying on Muhammad Ilyas v. Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan (2005 SCMR 961), it is argued that so far as the rules and regulations framed by the University authorities for the purpose conducting/ regularizing the examination etc, of the University are concerned these are required to be interpreted by the University authorities itself and the Courts should avoid to interpret the same unless a case grave injustice is made out, otherwise it would be difficult for the administration to run its internal affairs relating to the examination etc. Further submits that; since the petitioners have failed to obtain the required CGPA in the 2nd semester, entitling them to be promoted to the 3rd semester and their names were rightly removed from the role of the University. The University has vested powers and had complete authority to amend the regulations with prior notice and if amendment is made before examination, the petitioners cannot claim any vested right that they shall be treated in accordance with unamended rules. The petitioners had not pointed out any violation of existing rules of Bahauddin Zakariya University in dropping of the petitioners and striking off from the University role. Further submits that under section 11-A of Bahauddin Zakariya University Act, 1975, the petitioners have a remedy by way of representation before the authorities of the University, hence the petitioners having alternate adequate remedy, therefore, they cannot invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Further submits that; this Court, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction cannot strike down the rules of educational institution declaring the same to be cruel and harsh. Reliance is placed on Saraha Malik v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2001 MLD 1026). Further submits that the petitioners are bound by the rules which were applicable at the time of their admission i.e. Uniform Semester Rules, dated 14-6-2004, which were in existence as the petitioners were given admission in the University in September, 2004. In this respect reliance is placed on Akhtar Ali Javed v. Principal, Quaid-e-Azam Medical College (1994 SCMR 532). Uniform Semester Rules, dated 14-6-2004 have been prospectively made applicable by the amendment introduced on 14-6-2004, thus Grade Point Average mentioned in prospectus 2004 was not applicable to the case of the petitioners at the time when the names of the petitioners were struck off from the role, these rules were not discriminatory to that extent.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and 'perused the record. In the opening para. Of prospectus 2004 and prospectus 2005, it is mentioned that "the prospectus is issued on the express condition that it shall net form part of a contract between the University an student". The very mentioning of this made it clear that information given in the same does not bind the Chairman Admission Committee. It was mane clear that, admission in the University is subject to the requirement that the student would comply the. University procedure and will duly observe charter, statute, ordinance, rules and regulations of the University. In this view of the matter, issuance of prospectus to the students and rules, regulations and conditions mentioned therein, does not constitute any contract between the student and the University. It is an admitted fact that; the petitioners took admission in September, 2004 in the Ist Semester B.Sc. (Hons.) Agriculture in Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan and the Uniform Semester Rules were Notified vide No.99 Acad/Sem/Regu/3176, dated 14-6-2004 and were in field and were available in the printed form in the office of the University and a clear notice to this effect was given to the students mentioned at page 70 of the prospectus 2004 that, "the statutes, regulations and syllabus for B.Sc. Agricultural Engineering (4 years Course) are available with the University College of Agriculture". This is a clear notice to the students-petitioners to inquire from the office about the statute, rules and regulations.
It appears that, as per CGPA ,printed in 2004 prospectus, it is mentioned that, a student who would obtain more than 40% marks was held to be declared to be successful. Applying this principle in the case of the petitioners when they appeared in the Ist semester examination, they were promoted to 2nd semester. However, before examination of 2nd semester, it was made published that Uniform Semester Rules on 14-6-2005 would be applicable and a clear -qji6ce to that effect was given to the now by affixing the same on the notice ward before the students appeared in the examination. In this respect reliance is placed on Muhammad Shakeel v. Vice-Chancellor, University of Agriculture and others (2005 CLC 1) wherein it has been held that after a student appeared in the examination without notice that a change had been brought in the earlier notification or regulation, the petitioners acquired a vested right and also legitimate expectation for their promotion to the next semester, on the basis of notification, which was in vogue at the time of their appearance in the examination and passing the same. Any subsequent change would not affect the right of the petitioners, which they earned by obtaining the requisite marks as per earlier notification. In the instant case the amendment made was in field since 14-6-2004, and again, the same was notified by the University by affixing the same on the notice board with clear notice to all the students that examination will be regulated by these rules and the petitioners, who after clear notice from the University, appeared A.1 the examination, now cannot turn around and say that they had no notice of the rules and regulations, dated 14-6-2004 and are to be governed by grading system published in prospectus 2004. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners that, rules were not duly notified through prospectus have no substance, all laws and regulations, cannot be notified through prospectus. A student, who seeks admission is supposed to know rules and regulations applicable to his study, which have otherwise been duly notified.
7. To maintain a particular standard of studies, rules have to be framed in such a manner for higher standard of education to be maintained throughout the studies. In the present case it was duly notified in the prospectus 2004 at page 70 that rules and regulations are available in the office of University and the students are supposed to collect the same to update their information regarding rules and regulations for conducting examination. So far as the rules and regulations framed by the University authorities for the purpose of conducting/Regularizing examinations etc. Of universities are concerned these are required to be interpreted by the University authorities itself and the Courts should avoid to interpret the same unless a case of grave injustice is made out otherwise it would become difficult for the University administration to run its internal affairs relating to examinations etc. The perusal of the regulations pertains to examination the petitioners were required to obtain (CGPA) independently in each semester for the purpose of promotion to the next semester. As it has been pointed out that the petitioners did not obtain requisite (CGPA) in the 2nd semester i.e. 1.50 the University authorities rightly removed their names from the college roll.
' In the above circumstances, I find no merit in this writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.