' MAZHAR HUSSAIN MINHAS, J.--Miss Rabia Talib and Miss Ayesha Iqbal through their respective Writ Petitions Nos.862 of 2008 and 898 of 2008, are seeking direction to respondent No,1 to allow them to re-appear in the examinations for the subject of Study Skills, and Literary Forms and Movement
(LFM) and Study Skills, respectively and also to allow them to continue their studies in the second semester. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in both the writ petitions, therefore both are being disposed of through this single judgment.
2. Miss Rabia Talib-petitioner got admission in M.A. English (Morning) on 25-9-2007 on self-finance basis and started attending her classes. At the time of final examination on 7-1-2008 Mr. Athar Munir/respondent No,6 in W.P. No,862 of 2008 conveyed her shortage of lectures by 0.02 marks and did not allow her to take paper of Study Skills. Therefore, on 23-1-2008 the petitioner moved application to Chairperson English Department/ respondent No,3 for permission to appear in the said paper. Her application was submitted to Vice-Chancellor/respondent No,1 by the Chairperson with recommendation for sympathetic consideration, however the same did not find favour and was rejected. It was submitted by the petitioner in the application that since she got admission on 25-9-2007, therefore her lecture attendance should have been reckoned from that date instead of the date of commencement of the semester i.e,9-9-2007. After dismissal of her application , she filed W.PNo,360 of 2008 which was disposed of with permission to continue her studies subject to final decision of her appeal by Departmental Examination Committee. Pursuant to this Court's direction, she filed appeal before the Departmental Examination Committee, but the same was dismissed, which necessitated the filing of writ petition.
3. Similarly, Miss Ayesha Iqbalpetitioner of W.P.No,898 of 2008 got admission in M.A. English (Evening) on self-finance basis and deposited tuition fee on 25-9-2007 and 27-9-2007. She regularly attended the classes of Literary Forms and Movement (LFM) and Study Skills and qualified for first semester examination. However, on the day of examination i.e, 7-1-2008 she was not allowed to appear in the subjects of LFM and Study Skills on the basis of shortage of lectures. She moved application for permission to appear in the examination, but the same was not allowed.
Hence, she filed W.P. No,456 of 2008 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 22-2- 2008 with the observation:- ' "Be that as it may, although general principle of law is that everybody is supposed to know relevant law and rules applicable to his case but in the case of students, if some relaxation is granted to some of them, at least the teachers are required to intimate the others in the same set of circumstances to seek such relief if it is available under the law. Admittedly, petitioner was never called upon by the concerned authorities to make an application for the relief which was being considered for the others. In the circumstances, let the petitioner make an application to Departmental Examination Committee, where her case will be considered keeping in view the principle of equality and shall be treated at par as the case of Miss Sidra Parveen and Hira Naz. If the petitioner is found to be eligible to the relaxation, some special measures shall be taken for examination. However, in the meanwhile petitioner shall continue her studies in the 2nd semester."
' In pursuance of the above direction, she filed an application before the Departmental Examination Committee, but the same was rejected. Hence, she also had to file the writ petition.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the record with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners were given admission by the respondents on self-finance basis on 25-9-2007, therefore their lectures attendance should have been calculated from that date instead of date of commencement of the semester. In this respect, he has placed reliance on Faisal Shafique v. Vice-Chancellor, AJ&K University and 5 others 1999 M LD 175. Learned counsel has further contended that Miss Sidra Parveen and Miss Hira Naz students of the same semester and facing similar problem have been allowed to reappear in. The especially arranged examination. The petitioners' case is at par with them, therefore they are also entitled to the same relief. Lastly, it has been submitted that in the month of December, 2007 attendance of Miss Ayesha Iqbalpetitioner on three days has been struck off with mala fide, without any plausible justification.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that under rule 4 of the Uniform Semester Rules notified by the University students are required to attend 75% lectures minimum and a student having deficiency of lectures is not allowed to sit in the final examination. Learned counsel further submitted that under Rule 12 (c) such student may be allowed to appear in the Special Examination provided he submits application to the department for permission to re- appear on or before the day of examination. The petitioners moved applications after final examination was over, therefore their representations were lawfully rejected. According to learned counsel, Miss Sidra Parveen and Miss Hira Naz were allowed relaxation by Chairperson with the approval of Vice-Chancellor, therefore special examination was arranged for them. Regarding the deletion of attendance of Miss Ayesha Iqbal in the attendance register, learned counsel has submitted that the concerned Lecturer subsequently came to know that the petitioner had fictitiously marked her presence on those days, therefore he struck down her attendance.
7. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties, following questions emerge for determination:-
(i) whether the attendance of a student for the purposes of qualifying percentage should be calculated from the date of admission or from the date of commencement of the semester?
(ii) Whether the petitioners' case is at par with Miss Sidra Parveen and Miss Hira Naz, who have been allowed relaxation of shortage of lectures, and they are also entitled to the same relief?
8. Rule 4 of the Uniform Semester Rules notified by the Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University, Multan provides that a maximum of 15 % absence are allowed for undergraduate programmes and 25% for graduate programmes. Deficiency, i.e, inability to pass a course on the basis of shortage of attendance, shall be treated as a failure in that course, unless withdrawal is allowed by the Chairman according to the procedure and rules. Clause (ii) of this rule disentitles a student from appearing in the final examination in case of deficiency in attendance, properly notified through the notice Board. However, under Clause (iii) of the said rule, Chairman of the department and the Vice-Chancellor of the University are competent to relax the deficiency upto 5% separately.
' It is provided in Rule 2 (ii) that each semester in each academic year shall start from the date as prescribed by the University. Obviously, under this rule, the attendance of regular student will be calculated from the date of commencement of a semester. However, rules are silent as to what would be the date of commencement of semester in case of late admission of a student on self- finance basis. If a student is given admission on self-finance basis when the semester had already started, he may not be able to achieve the requisite percentage of attendance due to his late admission. Therefore, logically speaking he should not be penalized on account of deficiency in attendance. In "Faisal Shafique v. Vice-Chancellor, AJ&K University and 5 others" 1999 M LD 175, a similar question has been dealt with and it has been observed that rule of 75% attendance will be applicable to student from the date of his admission, and it will be obligatory for him to attend 75% of the total delivered lectures from the date of his admission to the University.
' This fact has been conceded by Dean, Faculty of Languages/respondent No,2 also in his parawise comments submitted in W.P.No,360 of 2008 filed by Miss Rabia Talib. It was recorded by him in those comments that since the admission was late, therefore counting of lectures should have been effected from the date of" her admission i.e, 25-9-2007. Thus, in view of the above referred judgment as well as admission of respondent No,2, the petitioners' attendance was required to be calculated from the date of their admission and not from the date of commencement of the semester.
9. As regards the second question, Miss Sidra Parveen and Miss Hira Niaz, students of the same semester were having their attendance percentage less than 65% but their deficiency of lectures was condoned by Chairperson of the . Department of English. As already mentioned, under Clause
(iii) of rule 4 ibid, Chairman of the department was competent to give relaxation upto 5 per cent, but as per record available on the file Chairperson-respondent No,3 allowed relaxation to Miss Sidra Parveen and Miss Hira Naz over and above her competence. Confronted with this aspect of the matter, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that relaxation was allowed to the aforesaid students by respondent No,3 with the approval of Vice-Chancellor, therefore the above mentioned rule has not been violated. There is nothing on the record to substantiate the contention of learned counsel that approval of Vice-Chancellor was properly obtained to grant relaxation.
Even otherwise, Chairperson was not authorized to allow relaxation on behalf of the Vice- Chancellor. The latter should have independently exercised his discretion. In this respect, a very novel and interesting explanation has been given by the Chairperson in parawise comments that Miss Sidra Parveen was the only student to be dropped off the rolls of the department, therefore her case was considered on sympathetic ground keeping in view her hardship and her state of mind which was revealed at the time of personal hearing by the Chairperson. This observation clearly shows that the Chairperson allowed relaxation to Miss Sidra Parveen just to show efficiency and 100% result of her department and did not strictly follow the rules. It may also be worth-mentioning that Miss Sidra Parveen was having shortage of attendance in five subjects, but she was allowed to re-appear in the especially arranged examination. Like wise, Miss Hira Naz who was short of attendance in the subject of Study Skills was allowed relaxation on the plea that she could not mistakenly sign the attendance sheet. All these facts lead to the irresistible conclusion that Chairperson of the department/respondent No,3 exercised her discretion in favour of both the said students in arbitrary and capricious manner, in violation of the prescribed rules. Miss Rabia Talib and Miss Ayesha Iqbal petitioners having their case on better footing than Miss Sidra Parveen have not been treated at par and have been clearly discriminated against.
10. Copy of the attendance sheet pertaining to subject of Study Skills is available on the record, perusal of which shows that attendance of Miss Ayesha Iqbal has been deleted on three consecutive dates in the month of December, 2007. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to justify .This interpolation in the attendance record. There is no explanation as to how it came to the knowledge of the teacher that Miss Ayesha Iqbal had fictitiously marked her presence on those dates. This fact adversely reflects upon the teacher's own conduct that he did not check the attendance of students on regular basis. In the absence of any valid reason for deleting the attendance of the petitioner, it may be presumed that her attendance was deleted with mala fide.
11. Sequel of above discussion is that respondent No,3 has not adopted the uniform policy and has committed discrimination against the petitioners by refusing to condone their deficiency in attendance and has not exercised her discretion justly. Under the principle of equality, the petitioners are also entitled to same treatment which has been meted out to their classmates.
Hence, both the writ petitions are allowed. The petitioners have already been allowed to appear in the final examination of 2nd semester provisionally, therefore it is directed that their result be announced, and if they have not succeeded in the examination they may be allowed to continue their studies in accordance with rules.