' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.--- Through this single order I propose to decide Writ Petition No,5546 of 2007 and Writ Petition No,4388 of 2007, as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the cases.
2. Petitioners were admitted in the Faculty of LL.,M. For the first Session of 2005-2006. They took exam. In January, 2007 but they both were declared as fail on the ground that both of them could not get 60% marks in one paper each. This action of the respondents is being assailed through the instant two separate constitutional petitions.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that under Regulation 15(vi)(a) the condition prescribed for passing exam. Is that the student should get at least 50% marks in each paper. Both the petitioners qualify on the touchstone of this regulation and are required to be declared as pass.
4. In response io this contention learned counsel for the respondent-University contends that the learned Vice-Chancellor vide order, dated 15-3-2006 amended the regulation which was later on approved by the Syndicate on 21-5-2006 and notified accordingly. According to this notification the existing pass percentage and aggregate percentage was revised as 60% pass marks in each paper. The petitioners do not fall within this amended position of law, therefore, they were declared as fail.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in response to this argument contends that the learned Vice- Chancellor exercised his powers vested in him under section 16(3) of the Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan Act, 1975 which are available to the learned Vice-Chancellor only in emergent cases and immediately thereafter the action taken by him under the said provisions of law should be reported to the competent authority, who in the ordinary course is required to process the issue.
It is submitted that this amounts to an amendment in the regulation, which is only possible under section 33 of the Act, which requires the same procedure as is required for the creation of a new regulation. This was an amendment in the regulation which was, no doubt, approved by the Syndicate but it had not undergone the process which the law requires.
6. Petitioner of Writ Petition No,4388 of 2007 adopts the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the instant case.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
8. No doubt the learned Vice-Chancellor has the power in emergent cases under section 16(3) to pass any order called for in the circumstances of the case but at the same time he is required to refer the matter to the authority concerned who in the ordinary course of system and under the law was required to take that action. In the instant case, the action taken by the learned Vice- Chancellor was an amendment in an existing regulation, therefore, under section 33 of the Act the procedure to amend a regulation is the same which is required for the creation of a regulation.
Section 32(2) of the Act requires that the regulations shall be prepared by the Academic Council and Shall be submitted to the Syndicate for approval. The Academic Council under section 28(2)
(a) is also a Body which is required to advise the Syndicate with regard to the academic matters.
This process of bringing about the amendment in the regulation was not followed by the respondents. It is strange to note that the Notification, dated 22-3-2006 indicates that the proposal for the impugned/disputed amendment in the regulation was made by the learned Vice- Chancellor on the recommendation of the Principal of University Law College, who in his this capacity alone figures nowhere to make such a recommendation.
9. Nutshell of the above discussion is that the amendment brought in Regulation 15(vi)(a) whereby pass marks have been changed from 50% to 60% is without any lawful authority and of no legal effect. Respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioners on the basis of the original text of the Regulation.