' SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.--- Brief facts giving rise to the petition are that the petitioner had joined the respondent university in it's B.Sc. (Chemistry) discipline, comprising of four (4) years programme. Petitioner having qualified 6th Semester, was promoted to 7th Semester. He was detained in 7th semester, on account of being unsuccessful in 50% of the courses taken by him. It was, however, claimed by the petitioner that he secured C.G.P.A. Of 2.6 i,e, more than required.
Petitioner repeated 7th Semester and was declared failed. The result sheet dated 13-3-2008, showing the petitioner dropped from 7th Semester, has now been called in question in this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent No,2, due to his personal grudge and spite, against the petitioner, is instrumental in dropping the petitioner from 7th semester. Impugned result sheet dated 13-3-2008 is not the examination result, but a result of mala fide. It is contended that as per Regulation 11(iv)(b) of Uniform Semester Rules (2007), a student who secures C.G.P.A. Of 2.00, after having been detained in 7th semester, shall be promoted to the next semester. Learned counsel added that petitioner, despite securing C.G.P.A. Of 2.3, has been declared failed. Learned counsel went on to argue that Hafiz Muhammad Abdullah, Roll No,06-03-2005, who failed in 3 subjects, was promoted to 8th semester. Muhammad Irfan, Roll No,C-04-08, who also failed in three (3) subjects, was promoted to 8th Semester. But the petitioner was treated unequally and discriminatory. It is contended that as per Rule 17 (ibid), the scripts of final examination is to be displayed within 7 days from the date of termination of examination, but the petitioner's result was issued 2-1/2 months, after the termination of examination.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the Uniform Semester Rules (effective from academic Session 2007) are not applicable to the petitioner. The petitioner's session is 2003-2007 and as such, conduct of his examinations and results, are governed under Rules, 2003. Rules applied and implemented, in the case of the petitioner, are the rules, which were in vouge during his academic session. Learned counsel has submitted that according to sub-rule (g) of Rule 8 of Rules of Promotion, it is mandatory for the student to obtain minimum C.G.P.A. Of 2.00 and also pass 50% of the courses offered. Learned counsel has defied the allegation of petitioner that Hafiz Muhammad Abdullah and Muhammad Irfan, were promoted despite their inability to pass 50% of the courses they offered. He has submitted that both the students passed more than 50% of the courses they offered. Learned counsel referred to the cases of Muzzamil Shehzad v. Bahauddin Zakaria University, Multan and 2 others 2006 YLR 370, Sami ur Rehman v. V.C., Bahauddin Zakaria University and 2 others 2006 CLC 1501 and Bahauddin Zakaria University v. Muhammad Ilyas 2004 YLR 2639 to contend that the students, who do not acquire the required score in the semester system, are to be dropped from the roll of Department, keeping in view the standard of education, by strictly adhering to the regulations for each discipline.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and record perused.
5. There is no dispute between the parties that petitioner has secured C.G.P.A. Of 2.60, but has not succeeded in passing 50% of the courses, which he offered for 7th Semester. The prevailing rules, for the C conduct of examination, provide that a student must obtain minimum C.G.P.A. Of 2.00 and pass 50% of the course offered for that semester. It will be advantageous to reproduce hereunder Regulation 11(v):--- "At the end of the last semester of the programme a student must obtain not less than 2.00 otherwise he/she shall be removed from the rolls of the Department. A student who has not been required to repeat any course(s), obtains C.G.P.A. Of 2.00 but less than 2.20 at the end of the last semester, will be allowed to repeat one or two courses of the previous semester in which he/she had obtained the lowest grade, in order to improve the C.G.P.A. So as to obtain the minimum of 2.20 failing which he/she shall be removed from the rolls of the Department."
6. According to the above regulations, passing 50% of the course taken is mandatory requirement for promotion to the next semester. Obtaining C.G.P.A. Of 2.00 singly, is not enough for promotion.
Seeking refuge in resorting to Regulation 11(iv)(b) is of no help to the petitioner as it is evident from bare perusal of Regulations (Annexure B) that Uniform Semester Rules, referred by the petitioner, have been made effective from Academic Sessions 2007. These rules have no application to the previous academic session. University Authorities/management, being framer of the Rules and Regulations, can interpret the same and courts are not required to replace its opinion with those who are actively involved in making policy and rules. Courts can interfere and interpret rules, when there is a case of extreme injustice. I have already expressed similar views in my judgment in the case of Rashid Nawaz and 7 others v. University of the Punjab through Vice-Chancellor PLD 2007 Lah. 78, while speaking for a Division Bench of this Court.
7. The result of the petitioner, when he was given chance to repeat 7th Semester, shows that he had taken 5 courses and failed in 4 courses, as per Detail Marks Certificate (Annexure R/III). The petitioner was dropped. A dropout, as per Rule 13(c), is provided only one chance toile repeat that semester. The impugned action against the petitioner has been taken according to rules and regulations and the petitioner is bound by it. While holding so, I am fortified by the dictum of judgment of the apex Court in the case of Ali Younis v. Chairman of Academic Council 2000 SCMR 1222. Respondent's action, cannot be assailed in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, as dropping of a student from the roll of the department, as per the regulations, need strict adherence, to keep the standard of education.
8. Petitioner has not succeeded in making out a case of discrimination or unequal treatment. Detail Marks Certificate of Hafiz Muhammad Abdullah and Muhammad Irfan are placed on the file. It is reflected from these certificates that former offered 6 courses and passed 3 courses, while later passed 4 out of 7 courses, which he offered. Both students had obtained C.G.P.A. Of 2.62 and 2.41 respectively. Their respective promotion was in accordance with the prevalent rules.
9. For the foregoing, this petition, having no merit, has no fate except dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.