MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This I.C.A. Proceeds against judgment, dated 29-11-2005 of learned Single Judge, in chamber of this Court, whereby Writ Petition No.6709 of 2005 filed by the appellants and five others was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Rule relied upon in the impugned judgment was never enforced and remained suspended and thus could not have been enforced by the Vice- Chancellor to the detriment of his client. He has further contended that the Rule has not been properly interpreted and that upon proper interpretation of the said Rule his clients are entitled to appear in the Annual Examination. Mr. Tariq Rajwana, Advocate for the respondent, on the other hand supports the impugned judgment.
2-A. We have gone through the writ petition records. So far as the said first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, we do not find any force in the same. Reason being that there is no denial of the fact that the regulation in question was competently framed. It is true that it was not acted upon as declared vide notification dated 17-12-2002, but then it was made applicable with effect from academic session 2001-2002. Needless to state that a student cannot claim a vested right in the matter of Rules governing his education, as held in the case Rana Saeed Ahmad v. Controller of Examination, BZU, Multan 1996 SCM R 792. However, we have considered the respective cases of the appellants before us in the light of the said second submission of the learned counsel. We deem it appropriate to reproduce here the said Regulation No.18:-- "18. If a candidate fails to pass in more than four papers (50% theory, 50% practical) as a result of Annual and Supplementary Examination of the first year combined he shall not be allowed to appear in any subsequent examination and shall have his name removed from the rolls of the University: Provided that no candidate shall be allowed to appear in the final year examination who carries more than 8 papers of lower class other than first year: Provided further that a candidate who is allowed to appear in the final year examination while carrying eight papers of the lower classes, his result of the final years examination, in case of his passing in all subjects of the final years, shall not be declared till he has cleared the papers of the lower class."
We do not find any ambiguity in the afore reproduced provisions. Main provision pertains to the first year class. First proviso places embargo upon a candidate to appear in the final examination if he has failed in more than eight papers of the lower class apart from the first year class while second proviso permits a candidate carrying eight papers to appear in the final examination but vests a power in the University to withhold his result till clearance of lower class papers.
3. Now according to the details provided by the learned counsel for the respondent, appellant No.1 failed in first year in two papers and then in one paper. In second year he failed in eight papers and then in six papers while in third year he failed in 15 papers.
Appellant No.2 failed in first year in one paper, but then passed examination. In second year two papers while in third year he failed in three papers.
Appellant No.3 failed in first year in one paper; in second year failed in seven papers and in third year failed in six papers.
Appellant No.4 passed the first year examination. He failed in second year in five papers and then in two papers. In third year, he failed in nine papers and then in seven papers.
Appellant No.5, failed in first year in three papers, in the second year 11 papers and in third year failed in twelve papers. Thus, appellant No.1 failed in 22 papers, appellant No.2 failed in 5 papers, appellant No.3 failed in 14 papers, appellant No.4 failed in 9 papers while appellant No.5 failed in 26 papers.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has tried to argue that the theory and practical papers were to be considered as one paper and if this rule is applied number of failing papers would become muchless. We are afraid provisions of Rules are clear on the subject and Part-I Theory and Part-II (inter alia practical), constitute two separate papers. This being so, the calculation made by the respondents is found to be correct. Now applying the said Regulation 18 to the cases of the appellants we find that appellants Nos.1, 3 and 5 are not at all entitled to appear in the said annual examination without clearing the said backlog of the failing papers. However, so far as appellant No.2 is concerned, his case does not at all fall within the mischief of Regulation 18. We have considered the case of Shahid Hussain, appellant No.4 and find that out of all the appellants, he is the only one who passed first year examination in first attempt. To our mind, the respondent- University should give him credit for the same. Nine papers do not include any paper of the first year and to our mind he deserves to be given a chance to appear in the annual examination subject to provisions of second proviso to Regulation 18. This I.C.A. Accordingly is allowed in the matter of appellant No.2 and appellant No.4 as observed above, while the I.C.A. Is dismissed so far as appellants Nos.1, 3, and 5 are concerned