' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---This constitutional petition is directed against withdrawal of the petitioner from M.A. Literature Programme of the Kinnaird College for Women, Lahore.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this constitutional petitionare that the petitioner was admitted in M.A. Literature Part-I Session 2005-20U6 in Kinnaird College for Women, Lahore. It is claimedthat the petitioner completed three semesters by the 2nd of June, 2006 having also appeared in one of the papers for M.A. Part-I, Final Examination in May, 2006. Subsequently, she was asked to withdraw from the college. Her representation filed, in this behalf, was turned down by the Principal of the College in question vide order, dated 1-6-2006. Hence this constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record appended with this constitutional petition as well as parawise comments has also been perused.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the order for withdrawal ofthe petitioner from M.A. 'Literature Part-I is in violation of the Prospectus. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that action of the respondents is mala fide and the petitioner has been victimized.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel has also contended that this constitutional petition is not maintainable against the respondents. Adds that the petitioner was admitted provisionally subject to fulfilling the condition that she would obtain minimum Grade "C". The petitioner having failed to fulfil the said condition was asked to withdraw from the college.
6. A perusal of the record reveals that apparently the petitioner did not make the merit for being admitted to the M.A. Literature Part-I Session, 2005-2006, however, she was provisionally admitted vide letter, dated 29-9-2005, which reads as under:-- "Misbah Riaz has been granted provisional admission into the Masters in English Literature Programme for the October-December Session, 2005. She must pass the Semester with an overall C Grade otherwise she will be asked to leave the programme."
' The said letter has been issued by the Principal of the College and signed by father of the petitioner as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied the said letter or the signatures of father of the petitioner thereupon.
7. It is clear and obvious from the above that the petitioner was admitted provisionally to the M.A.
Literature Part-I Session, 2005-2006 with the condition that she must pass each semester within overall Grade "C". It is also equally a matter of record and not denied by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had failed to obtain the requisite Grade in the examination of the semester in question. This aspect of the matter incidentally was conveniently not mentioned in theconstitutional petition. In the circumstances, the petitioner has failed to fulfil the condition on which she had been granted the provisional admission.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to argue thatthe petitioner has been dealt with unfairly and has not been granted the due marks for her work. I am afraid, this Court cannot check her work or substitute its judgment for that of the teachers qualified to do so. The bald allegation of mala fide is of no avail to the petitioner. In view of the above, this constitutional petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed.