' SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.--The appellant was studying in-6th semester in the sessions 2003-2007 and on his failing to achieve 2.0 CGPA, his name was removed from the rolls of the university, under Rule 11 (v) of the Uniform Semester Rules of Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan. Admittedly, the CGPA which the petitioner obtained in the 6th semester was 1.92 and the same was below the required standard and as such he was dropped from the rolls of the department. The appellant assailed notification dated 26-6-2006 in Writ Petition No,3330 of 2006, whereby he was removed from the rolls of the department. Learned Judge in Chamber through impugned order dated 7-7- 2006 dismissed the petition. Learned Judge in Chamber, however, observed in the impugned order that holding of summer camp is not permissible under the rules and same is not beneficial to the student, therefore, illegal practice of holding summer camp by the concerned department of the university be disbanded.
' The appellant Muhammad Ashfaq Ahmad Sial assailed the dismissal of the petition in I.C.A. No,101 of 2006, while the respondent University being aggrieved of the direction qua disbanding the summer camp, assailed the judgment of learned Judge in Chamber in I.C.A. No,105 of 2006. Both the appeals are against one judgment and are being disposed of through this common judgment.
The names of the parties referred in this judgment shall be according to the parties same as given in the title of I.C.A. No,101 of 2006.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant obtained minimum accumulative point average of 1.92 in the 6th semester and to raise it to the required average of 2.0, the appellant joined summer camp. The appellant was enrolled, he paid fee and joined the summer camp. At the end of the summer camp, the marks which the appellant obtained were not added to his accumulative grade point average. Learned Judge in Chamber has not appreciated that allowing the appellant to join summer camp, the respondents are bound by their assurance.
He referred to relevant printed material, which transpires that summer camp is held for improvement of deficiency in the earlier semesters. Learned counsel added that the respondents estopped by their conduct, to strike of the name of the appellant from the rolls of the department.
3. Learned counsel submitted further that Uniform Semester Rules, .2007 provided for detaining a student in the same semester. Such student can be allowed to repeat one the two courses of the previous semesters in which he had obtained lowerest grade, in order to obtain CGPA of minimum requirement. If the student fails to obtain minimum required level despite the chance to repeat the semester only then the candidate is removed from the rolls of the department. Learned counsel emphasized that the appellant joined the summer camp, on the assurance of the respondents that the marks obtained in the summer camp will be counted towards his grade point and he will be benefited adequately by joining the summer camp.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent university, on the- other hand, has contended that as per rules a student has to obtain required level of CGPA. One who fails to achieve the required standard, is dropped and his name is struck off from the rolls of the department. CGPA of the appellant in 6th sefhester was less than two and thus his name was rightly struck off. The judgment of learned Judge in chamber in this regard is based on the dictum of law laid down by the Apex Court, therefore, the same is not open to exception to that extent. Learned counsel vehemently argued that summer semester programme was, duly approved by the Syndicate in it's meeting dated 18-4-1998 on the recommendation of the Academic Council. Regulation 2(i) of the Uniform Semester Rules provided that summer semester shall be of two months' duration, comprising 45 credit hours. The summer camp is to enhance and upraise the educational standard and the same is within the rules, therefore, finding of the learned Judge in chamber in para-8 of the impugned judgment, is required under the law to be set aside.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and record perused.
6. The rules which are applicable to the appellant do not provide for repeating any course of the previous semester, in order to improve the CGPA, so as to obtain minimum of 2.00. A student who bails to obtain the minimum of 2.0, has no fate except for his removal from the rolls of department.
Uniform Semester Rules, 2007 are effective from Academic Sessions, 2007 and have no retrospective application. Identical issue was raised in the case of "Muhammad Awais Akhtar v.
Bahauddin Zakariya University and 2 others" (2009 CLC 163), wherein it was held by one of us, that the rules which are made effective from Academic Session, 2007, have no application to the previous Academic Session. Learned Judge in Chamber while passing the impugned judgment has thoroughly examined the controversy in depth and following the dictum of law laid down by the Apex Court observed that Court cannot direct the University authorities to interpret the rules in a specific manner as it would amount to interference in the internal arrangement of the University regarding examination. The finding is not open to exception and the constitutional petition of the appellant was rightly dismissed.
7. Now we will advert to the finding of the learned Judge in Chamber, regarding disbanding the summer camp. Learned Single Judge in Chamber observed in the impugned judgment that result obtained through summer camp, cannot be added nor there exists any provisions, in the rules for holding of the camp. He went further and observed that an impression is given to the students that results obtained during summer camp shall either be added in their credit or the same is helpful to them, for the retention in the semester. The students are misled, they pay handsome fees and join the camp to avail the chance of improving their result. The observation of learned Judge in chamber with regard to holding of summer camp, by misleading the students, collection of huge fees and after collection, payment to the teaching staff, does not require interference. There is sufficient material on the record which shows that the University Authorities had given the impression that summer camps are being held for improving grades etc. And that is why the students including the appellant joined the same. Since the appellant has been removed from the roll of the department at the end of 6th semester thus joining of the summer camp was hardly of any benefit to him. He joined the camp under the impression given to him by the University that it will be beneficial for the improvement of his grade. Such exercise is not praiseworthy and rightly condemned by the learned Judge.
' The students who joined the camp are intellectually benefited but at the same time it is the responsibility of the university to inform the students about the fruit which they will reap in joining such campus, besides intellectual grooming. The respondents can hold summer camps but they are under an obligation to provide complete detail either in prospectus or in the admission forms about the benefit, so as to rule out any misrepresentation.
8. So far as the finding of the learned Single Judge in Chamber regarding legality of the rules is concerned, we are in respectful disagreement with him. The holding of summer camp was recommended by the Academic Council of the university. The recommendations in this regard stood approved by the syndicate in it's meeting dated 18-4-1998. The summer camp is, therefore, held as per rules and with valid authority.
9. For the foregoing, these appeals have no fate except for dismissal and the same are accordingly dismissed. Order of learned Judge in Chamber is affirmed except for disbanding the summer camp.