MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.--- This I.C.A. Is directed against the judgment, dated 6-12-2005 passed by learned Single Judge, in Chamber, of this Court whereby Writ Petition No.5267 of 2005 filed by the appellant along with others, was dismissed.
2. The facts in brief are that appellant obtained admission in Bahauddin Zakariya University in program of studies for B.Sc. (Hons.) in Agricultural comprising of four years semester system examination in the year 2004. According to the appellant at the time of his admission in the Prospectus for the year 2004 program issued by Bahauddin Zakriya University, it was mentioned at page 68 of the said Prospectus under Grade Point Average heading that a student passing in D- Grade with minimum value 1 average and 40-49% marks shall be considered as pass and the appellant passed one semester accordingly and was promoted to second semester. The said class started on 2nd of February, 2005, however, despite obtaining D-Grade in second semester the appellant was not promoted to 3rd semester on the ground that appellant failed to obtain minimum accumulative Grade Point Average of 2.0 and also failed to get 50% marks, hence, was not entitled to be promoted to the next semester without fulfilling both the above conditions in terms of Rule 11(iv) of the Uniform Semester Rules notified by the Bahauddin Zakriya University vide Notification No.99/Acad/Sem/Regi/3176, dated 14-6-2004. The appellant along with others challenged the said refusal of the University authorities through constitutional petition by contending that in terms of the Grade Point Average published at page 68 of the Prospectus as the appellant had successfully passed the second semester by obtaining Grade-D with value (1) and 40-49% marks and that above regulation was neither conveyed to them nor they were in the knowledge of the same at the time of obtaining admission nor appearing in second semester exam., hence, they were not bound by the said Regulation and that same being in violation of the Prospectus has got no legal binding effect. The University authorities before the learned Single Judge took the plea that as the said Regulation was in force at the time when the appellants obtained admission i.e. October, 2004, hence, to say that same was either not in their knowledge or same had retrospective effect was without any force and that said Regulation having been issued by the University in exercise of its legal authority, hence, the same has got a legal force and this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction cannot strike down the said Rule by declaring the same to be cruel or harsh and that the appellant was bound by the Rules which were applicable at the time of his admission and were in existence at the time when appellants were given admission in University in September, 2004. In this respect reliance was placed on the case Akhtar Ali Javed v.
Principal Quaid-e-Azam Medical College 1994 SCM R 532. The learned Single Judge, in Chamber, of this Court after considering all the contentions of both the parties vide judgment, dated 6-12-2005 dismissed the writ petition. The said order of the learned Single Judge has now been assailed through the instant I.C.A.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that appellant was only bound by the terms of the Prospectus handed over to him at the time of admission and he has successfully qualified the second semester by obtaining Grade-D in terms of Grade Point Average as mentioned at page 68 of the said Prospectus for the year 2004, hence, he was not bound by the Regulation as the same was neither in his knowledge nor was communicated to him at the time of obtaining admission or any subsequent stage.
4. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
5. Uniform Semester Rules were notified on 14-6-2004 whereas the appellant admittedly got admission in September, 2004. The said Rules were properly notified through Notification No.99- Acad/Sem/Regi/3176, dated 14-6-2004 and thus, the said Notification has presumption of its notice to all those concerned. These Rules were framed by the University in exercise of its rules making authority and in case these Rules are either harsh or cruel this Court while sitting in constitutional jurisdiction cannot look into the same. Had these rules been framed with retrospective effect then grievance of the appellant would have some force but as mentioned above these Rules were already in force when the appellant obtained admission and appellant is bound by the same as held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Akhtar Ali Javed v. Principal Quaid-e-Azam Medical College 1994 SCM R 532. Needless to mention here that even at page 70 of the said Prospectus it has specifically been provided under the heading B.Sc. Agricultural Engineering (4 years Course) that Statutes, Regulations and Syllabus for B.Sc. Agricultural Engineer (4 years Course) are available with the University College of Agriculture. Had the appellant been vigilant at the time of obtaining admission he should have gone through these Rules as the same were in vogue at the time of their admission. Reliance placed by the appellants on the heading Grade Point Average at page 68 of the said Prospectus has nothing to do with the promotion of a student from one semester to another and for that matter the only criteria available is one as laid down in Rule 11(iv), mentioned above.
6. For what has been discussed above, the appellant has failed to make out a case for interference in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, in chamber, of this Court. Resultantly, this I.C.A. Is dismissed in limine.