' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This order will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 14249/09, 14292/09, 14293/09, 14713/09, 14714/09, 14715/09, 14716/09, 14717/09, 14718/09 and 14345/09 as identical questions of law and facts are involved therein. However, it shall remain on the file of Writ Petition No, 14249/09.
2. Through these petitions under Article 199 of the Constitute of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners have prayed for declaring the impugned notification, dated 4-7-2009 as illegal, unlawful, ultra vires and against the fundamental rights of the petitioners and further direction to respondents Nos. 1 to 5 to conduct examination of 4th semester for the petitioners about the subjects/courses which examinations had been taken before filing of the writ petitions and to allow them to appear in the economic papers and to award them degree of M.Sc.
Entrepreneurship and SME Management (Economics) Evening program for the Sessions 2007-2009.
3. The brief facts narrated in all the writ petitions are that the petitioners had applied in response to the admission notice published in the daily Newspaper "Nation", dated 20-5-2007 for admission in M.Sc. Program 2007-09 (Evening Programme) for disciplines of Entrepreneurship and Small and Medium Enterprise Management etc. The petitioners being graduate applied for the admission in M.Sc. In Entrepreneurship and SME Management for two years duration i.e, 4-SemesteRs, The 1st Semester Classes started on 17-9-2007 and the petitioners were allotted Roll Numbers, The duration of each semesters was four months and. Mid Term examination of each semester were held after two months of the commencement of the semester. In nutshell the claim of all the petitioners is that all of them having obtained CPGA more than 2:00 were qualified as per Prospectus of the University of Government College University for appearing in the other semester but they have been wrongly treated by the respondent on probation and it has been wrongly declared that they should be dropped as they have not earned CPGA 2.50. It has been wrongly declared that CPGA 2.50 was necessary for appearance in the further examination and wrongly has been made basis for drop page of the petitioners, who have been wrongly declared unsuccessful in different courses.
4. The counsel for the petitioners has contended that on 17-6-2009 result of re-sit examination was also declared and though some of the petitioners successfully passed and deposited 4th semester fee but they were not allowed to sit in the examination, who have been restrained from appearing in the next examination, which action of the respondents may be declared illegal and unlawful. It is further contended that the Prospectus was issued by the University-respondents in the year, 2007- 2009 Session and it has been find mention in the said Prospectus that CPGA should be 2-00 and if a student fails to below 2-00 he/she will be promoted to the next semester but if he/she fails to improve CPGA upto the required level at the end of the semester of probation, they he/she is dropped from the programmer. It is further contended that subsequently CGPA which was to be taken into consideration was considered as 2-50 instead of 2.00 which is against the Prospectus and the policy declared by the University and the petitioners have been Wrongly put on probation and subsequently dropped. It is further contended that the rules will be the same as applicable in M.Sc. (Economics) morning program me and there is not a single word in the Prospectus that which rules and regulations will apply to the student. It is also contended that copy of the resolution is not in the Prospectus. It is next contended that Higher Education Commission gives a policy and Higher Education Commission has declared that CGPA should be 2-50 and they have introduced this fact in their regulations for examination. It is further contended that Punjab University is also being supervised by the Higher Education Commission but in their Prospectus which is attached with this petition it was declared that the students of M.Sc. (Economics) will attend the course for two years consisting of four semesters and if the students earned 2.00 CPGA they will be promoted to next semester but they have earned 1.75 CPGA instead of 2-00 CPGA they will be put on probation and it is wrongly stated by the respondents that they were following the Higher Education Commission criteria. It is further contended that in the rules of promotion not a single word has been mentioned that the CPGA will be 2-50 CPGA as claimed by the respondents.
It is further contended that only those students were to be put on probation who attained CPGA 1- 07 to 2-00. It is also contended that it was not mentioned in the Prospectus and it was never declared by the University that it would be the last session of M.Sc in which the petitioners were got admitted. It is further contended that the notification was issued for re-sit examination by the respondent in February, 2009 which is undated and was introduced in order to fill up the lacuna that the students were never to'd that it was the last semester. It is further contended that there is no forthcoming Session of M.Sc. (Economics) and it has been abolished by the University which was not in the knowledge of the students. It is further contended that the undertaking was obtained from all the students by force as the students had no option except to surrender before the University. Even otherwise they were threatened that they would be dropped and in such circumstances under protest they appeared in the examination wherein proper questions were not asked to the students. Moreover, some of the questions were out of course and the numbers were not given to the students so that they may be expelled from the college by the respondents. It is further contended that the rules of promotion to next semester were not strictly followed. It is further contended that the respondents did not declare the result within seven days as per requirements that they gave the result after about two months after the semester when the students were already sitting in the next examination. Fee was charged from the students, they had deposited the same and subsequently the policy was changed. It is further contended that Rabia one of the petitioners could not deposit the fee and notice was issued on 24-6-2009 that she should deposit the feet on 3-7-2009 otherwise her name will be dropped. It is further contended that notice was issued in the name of her father who has already died and it was dispatched on 27-6-2009 and she was forced to deposit the fee in such a shortest time otherwise she was to be dropped if she was not qualified to sit in the forthcoming semester why the fee has been charges from the petitioner by the University. It is further contended that the time was not given to the students as per requirement of three hours to do their papers but the time was given only 1-45 houRs, All this has been done by the respondents in order to turn out all the students from their.
University with mala fide intention and ulterior motive and the petitioners have been discriminated.
Relies upon Muhammad Imran Siddique v. Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan and 2 others (2006 MLD 913), Syed Yasir Hayat Shah v. Comsats Institute of Information Technology Islamabad through Rector and another (2006 MLD 686) and Syed Faiz-ur-Rehman v. Principal Sheikh Zayed Medical College Rahimyar Khan and 4 others (2004 CLC 661) in support of his contentions. It is further contended that the petitioners have been discriminated and other persons allowed to participate in the examination and affidavits have been obtained through force. Relies upon Arslan Aziz v. Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan through Vice Chancellor and another (2007 CLC 132).
Also contends that the students were allowed to sit in the new semester who had attained 1.98 CGPA of the semester. It is further contended that subsequent changes in the Prospectus which were not included in the original Prospectus" are not applicable to the students and it is a vested right to challenge the said action of the University. Relies upon Muhammad Rafique and another v.
Director In-service Agriculture Training Institute and another (2007 CLC 1492) in support of his contentions that the rules which are being made applicable were not applicable to them as the said changes were not brought to knowledge of the petitioners, Relies upon Tehseen Mazhar and 24 others v. Vice Chancellor, University of Punjab, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 2008 Lah; 19) that the writ petition is maintainable and the students have been to be treated on compassionate grounds.
4(sic). On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has opposes these writ petitions on the ground that the requirement for M.A. (Economics) was 2-50 CPGA and Writ Petition No, 1564/08 titled "Riaz Ahmad v. Vice Chancellor etc. Was filed in this Court which has been dismissed on 5-12- 2008 and the same grounds had been taken in the present writ petitions. It is further contended that the University has to follow the criteria laid down by the Higher Education Commission and HEC has declared the promotion in the next semester to those students who attains CPGA of 2-50 and the University has to follow the same and has made regulations in the year, 2007. The academic council of the University has passed such regulation in July, 2007 and the said regulation has been notified on 21-7-2007 according to which only those students who attain 2-50 CPGA can be promoted to the next semester and if they attain CPGA 1-50 to 2-50 they can be put on probation and if they fail to attain CPGA 2-50 in the paper having attained less CPGA they will be dropped. Refers rules and regulations in this contention. It is further contended that the regulation system of marking is not applicable and system marking is applied in the examination which is the domain of the University. It is further contended that the absolute marking system is applicable since, 1997 and the petitioners have given examination under the said system. It is further contended that the rules and regulations have been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as is within the domain of the University. Relies upon Muhammad Ilyas v. Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan and another (2005 SCMR 961). It is further contended that it has been held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that CPGA and making of rules and regulations for holding the examination is within the domain of the University and the Court should avoid to interfere in the working of the University. It is further contended that all the petitioners had applied for admission in 2007. Now in 2008 they wanted to have taken the benefit of the regulations and they are estopped by their conduct to challenge the same regulation. It is further contended that it was in the knowledge of the students that the regulation has been notified and now they are estopped by their conduct. Relies upon Aqsa Manzoor v. University of Health Sciences, Lahore through Vice Chancellor and 3 others (PLD 2006 Lah; 482). It is further contended that it is a policy matter and the writ cannot be issued against the policy declared by any Institution. It is further contended that the students had availed the opportunities and having remained unsuccessful have filed these writ petitions, they were the beneficiary of the same rules. Relies upon Collector of Customs, Lahore and others v. Universal Gateway Trading Corporation and another (2005 SCMR 37) that making of papers, the manner in which marking has been made, the criteria which has been adopted by the University and Education Institution for promotion of the students to next semester are the questions to be resolved by she University and the courts cannot interfere as these involved factual controversies which cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction. It is further contended that general allegation of mala fide has been levelled without any specific allegation hence the writ petitions are not maintainable.
Relies upon Rashid Ali v. National College of Arts through Principal and another (2001 YLR 1428) and Nazia Syed v. District Education Officer, Okara and 2 others (2004 YLR 801) in support of his contentions. It is further contended that efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners under the law as under the Government College University Act, 2002, section 10 provides that the remedy lies before the Vice-Chancellor. It is further contended that Vice-Chancellor even can on its motion under section 11, review the order and anybody can also move the Chancellor who can also revise the order of the University. It is further contended that the students are duty bound to inquire about the changes made in the proceedings and cannot claim ignorance of the same. It is also contended that the petitioners have attended the classes of 2007-2009 Sessions and subsequently changes were made in the regulations which were applicable in the year 2007, but are being applied in the year, 2009 and inaugural sessions was called and they were told about the regulation. It is further contended that the petitioners have failed to point out mis-application or non-application of regulations. It is further contended that evaluation how is to be made is the prerogative and only the University can declare anybody to be qualified. It is lastly contended that the writ petitions may be dismissed as the petitioners have also availed the chance to sit in the examination and had sworn affidavits, but having remained unsuccessful cannot challenge the same action and the writ petitions may be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Higher Education Commission regulates the criteria of the students, which has declare that the students of the Universities are required CGPA for qualification for Bachelors 2-0 and Master students 2-50 respectively. Copy of the Policy Guidelines approved by the High Education Commission has been produced by the learned counsel for the respondents. The relevant portion is reproduced is as under:--
(15) "Computation of Semester Grade Point Average (GPA) and Cumulative Grade Point Average (CPGA).
"Semester Grade Point Average (GPA) and Cumulative Grade Point Averages (C. GPAs) will be calculated using the following relationship:- GPA = Sum over Courses in Semester (Course Credit Hours x Grade Point Earned).
' Total Semester Credit Hours, CPGA = Sum over all taken courses in all Semesters (Course Credit Hours x Grade Point Earned).
' Total Credit Hours taken in all Semesters, Universities may follow any other standard procedure for calculation CGPA.
(16) CGPA Required for Degree Completion (Undergraduates Masters/MPHIL).
' For Graduation the minimum qualifying CGPAs for Bachelors and Master Students are 2-00 and 2- 50 respectively.
' Whether an undergraduate students CGPA decreases from 2.0 or a graduate students CGPA decreases from 2.5, he/she will be on 1st probation for the next semester. If the undergraduate student does not come out by increasing his/her C.GPA to 2.0, or a graduate student does not come out by increasing his/her CGPA to 2.5 then again she/he will go on "Last probation". If the student who was earlier on 1st probation, does not come out in the last probation by achieving the minimum desired C.GPA she/he shall be dropped from the Institute and cannot be readmitted by the same Institute."
' Admittedly the petitioners are students of Masters and not the students of Bachelor hence the criteria laid down by the Higher Education Commission is that they must have earned CGPA 2.50 for promotion in the next semester. It has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that regulations Government Collage University Examination Rules had been made in the year, 2007, which lays down the criteria for holding the examination for permitting the students and declaring them to be promoted to the next semester. Government College University, Lahore examining regulation has been framed. According to regulation 3.1.1. "The Master Programme is of two years duration, divided into four semesters". According to regulation 3.1.7 the required CGPA is 2.50, which is reproduced as under:-- "3.1.7. He/she has to score 2.50 CGPA at the end of program for the award of Degree.
' It has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that under Regulation 1.12.1 grading system has been declared which is reproduced as under:-- "Final grade in each course shall be awarded to the students on the basis of marks obtained by the students and his/her relative position in the class in the respective course. These grades then translated into Grade Points (GP). For determining a students standing at the end of every semester, the Grade Point Average (GPA) system shall be used."
' According to rule 1.12.5 semester grade point average (SGPA) has been mentioned which is reproduced as under:-- ' Semester Grade Point Average (SGPA) shows the performance of a student (hiring a Semester. It is calculated by dividing the sum of Grade Points attained in each course of a semester by the total number of Credit hours for semester."
' Similarly rule 3.1.7 is reproduced as under:-- "He/she has to score 2.50 CGPA at the end of program for the award of Degree."
' Similarly rule 3.3.6 is reproduced as under:-- "The result of Mid Semester Test shall be sent by the Chairperson of the Department to the Controller of Examinations within 5 days positively after the last day of Mid Semester Test."
' Similarly rule 3.6 General Criteria for qualifying a semester.
"3.6.1 A student shall qualify the course if he/she scores at least 50% marks in the Semester Work, mid Semester Test and Final Examination combined."
"3.6.2 No grace marks shall be awarded to the students.
"3.6.4 A student who scores CGPA between 1.50 and 2.50 CGPA in a Semester, may be conditionally promoted to the next semester and he/she shall be placed on probation."
"3.6.5. Re-admission in the Program is only allowed once"
From the perusal of above-said regulations it is clear that the students have to follow the regulations which have been passed by the Syndicate and according to the said criteria laid down in the said regulations all the petitioners were required to earn 2-50 CGPA for promotion in the next semester and if any of the students attains 1.50 to 2.50 CGPA he was to be put on probation. In such circumstances it is claimed by thp University and the writ petitions do not deny that the students who were put on probation had failed to gain CGPA 2.50 and those students who fail to improve their CGPA in the next semester which they were studying provisionally and fail to attain CGPA 2.50 in those papers in the previous semester they had attained CGPA from 1.50 to 2.50 can be dropped from the semester.
6. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that they were not aware of the regulations and they cannot be dealt with in the said regulations and the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner consists of the judgments passed by the High Court but the learned counsel for the respondent has rightly drawn the attention of this Court that the petitioners and other students Were being dealt with according to the rules and regulations during the year, 2007-2009 and they were dropped when their CGPA was less than 2-50, but they never objected and the objection has been raised only when they had become unsuccessful to appear in the fourth semester as they failed to attain CGPA 2.50 which is the requirement for appearance in the fourth semester examination. The learned counsel for respondent has pointed out that it was in their knowledge that the regulation has been made by the University, who had appeared in the examination under the said regulation and now they are estopped by their conduct to challenge the same. The learned counsel has rightly relied upon "PLD 2006 Lah; 482 (surpa) and the relevant portion is reproduced as under:- "The University of Health Sciences Lahore was established to consolidate all the Colleges in one streamline policy and formulate one policy for all the Government and its affiliated Colleges. Its aim and purpose was to improve the standard and quality of medical education. In other words, it is the duty of the University of Health Sciences to frame policies of such nature, so as to promote the up to highest mark of the quality medical education. It is settled law that policy matters of the Government cannot be assailed or challenged in the writ jurisdiction unless those are proved to have been framed or formulated against the fundamental and basic provisions of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Therefore, viewed from this angle the notification, dated 14-7-2004 is an effort of the University of Health Sciences, Lahore to improve the quality and standard of medical education. It has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that all these petitioners had participated in the examination after the enforcement/publication of this notification, dated 14-7-2004. Their objection that they were not imparted the knowledge of the enforcement of this notification and so they were not in the knowledge of the provisions of his regulation, the simple answer to their contention is that law is promulgated, published in the Gazette of the Government or through notifications of a notifying body, empowered by law to do so. As and when a notification is published and enforced, it becomes the law. It is not necessary or mandatory for the enforcing authority to inform or impart knowledge of that notification to each and every one. It is the duty of every student, College Authorities and Citizens to be aware of the new laws being enforced by its competent authorities. Ignorance of law N snot an excuse, is the widely known legal maxim upon which building structure of law has been built. The students having participated and taken the next coming examination after the publication of that notification, dated 14-7-2004 are to be considered and held to have known the existence and impact of that notification. Therefore, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted to or approved in law that the students/petitioners were not aware of the above mentioned notification.
' In law a person, who acts or takes steps after the enforcement of a law, rules and regulations cannot be permitted to resale or retreat by stating that he would not be governed by newly enforced laws, rules and regulations. The rule of approbation and reprobation would be applicable in such a case. It may be noted that at the end of each chapter of examination the notification has in fact given a clear warning to all concerned by noting the following sentence:- "The regulations shall be applicable with effect from Annual Examination, 2004 and onward".
' As the writ petitioners have appeared and attempted the Annual Examination of 2004, therefore, they are to be governed by this regulation. They are now estopped to raise any objection against this notification after having availed the benefit of it but having remained unsuccessful."
7. I am also in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondents that the making of rules and regulations of the University/Institution is within the domain of the University and the Court cannot interfere as the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Ilyas v. Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan and another (2005 SCMR 961) has approved this argument and the relevant portion is reproduced as under:-- "We have heard the learned counsel and have also gone through the relevant regulation. At the outset it may be noted that as far as the rules/regulations framed by the University Authorities for the purpose of conductive/regularizing examination etc. Of University are concerned these are required to be interpreted by the University Authorities itself and Courts should avoid to interpret the same unless a case of grave injustice is not made out otherwise it would become difficult for University administration to run its internal affairs relating to examination, etc. Further, a perusal of Regulation 8(F) and its other parts clearly demonstrate that the petitioner has required to obtain
(CGPA) independently in each semester for the purpose of promotion to the next semester. As it has been pointed out hereinabove that the petitioner did not obtain requisite (CGPA) in the 3rd semester i.e, 2-00 (CGPA), therefore. University Authorities in exercise of power conferred upon them under Regulation 8(F) rightly removed his name from the roll. The learned ICA Bench after examining the case of petitioner in depth reached to the conclusion that he was required to obtain 2.00 CGPA in the 3rd semester, therefore, his name was rightly removed from the roll of University as impugned judgment is just and legal, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan".
8. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the papers have not been checked properly and syllabus was not considered at the time of re-checking of papers or some questions were carelessly put in the question papers these are factual controversies which cannot be resolved by this Court in writ jurisdiction as the said controversy can only be resolved after recording the evidence and reliance has rightly been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on "2005 SCMR 37" and "2006 SCMR 276". General allegation of mala fide has been levelled but no specific mala fide has been levelled against the University for dropping the petitioners in the semester as per regulation which has been framed by the competent authority of the University in the year, 2007 at the time of initiation of session and on the basis Of general allegation writ cannot be issued as has been held in The Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary Establishment Division, Govt; of Pakistan. Rawalpindi v. Saeed Ahmad Khan and others (PLD 1974 SC 1501). I am also fortified by the judgments reported as 2001 YLR 1428 and 2004 YLR 801 (supra). Even otherwise it has been held by the High Court in Muhammad Faisal Haseeb Khan Baloch and 2 others v. Vice Chancellor, Bahauddin Zakriya University, Multan and 2 others (2006 YLR 413) that the students are duty bound to inquire about the changes made in the Prospectus.
Even otherwise the University had not made any effort for ousting the students and had not made any discriminatory regulations but the said regulations were applied to all the students who were admitted in the same session and 82% students have passed the examination under the same rules and regulations. The students who remained unsuccessful cannot challenge the same as they failed to achieve 2.50 CGPA. In such, circumstances this Court cannot issue writ against the respondents for not following the criteria laid down by the Higher Education Commission.
9. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Punjab University has adopted the criteria for droppage of the students if they failed to attain CGPA 2, but the Government College, University has adopted CGPA at highest rate of 2.50, suffice it to say that every University has a right to make the standard for their students. The Government College University has adopted the criteria for their students and no guarantee has been given to the students that if they fail to achieve CGPA less than 2.50, they will not be dropped. It was the duty of the students to do their job diligently and did hard work to meet the requirement of the regulation to pass examination, but if they have failed to do so this Court cannot come to their help by discarding the criteria laid down by the University which is within the domain of the University under which the majority has succeeded. This Court cannot interfere in the affairs of the University.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents has also pointed out that the students were aware of the fact that it was the last session of M.Sc. In which they had appeared and in order to give a chance to the petitioners along with the students who could not attain CGPA 2.50 through a notification were allowed to sit in the examination. Of hundred marks to improve their percentage of CGPA. A number of students have cleared the said examination but unsuccessful candidates in the said examination have filed these writ petitions. Admittedly chance was afforded to the petitioners to improve their qualification at the end of the semester, but they failed to improve their CGPA in spite of having availed the chance. Now they are estopped by their conduct to challenge the examination as they could not succeed in the said examination.
6(sic). For the foregoing discussion all the writ petition being devoid of any merit are dismissed with no order as to costs.
7(sic). However, as the students have spent huge money and time of two years in the studies, learned counsel for the respondents was asked to get instructions from the Controller of Examination who has given an undertaking that all the petitioners and other students who had studied in their University from 2007-2009 in the same subjects in which writ petitions have been filed will be given a certificate and they can get the admission in the other Universities and Institution for the remaining studies and can try their luck. Moreover, as the respondents has forced them to deposit The fee for fourth semester for which they were not qualified without intimation to them that they would not be allowed to sit in the examination of fourth semester, the respondents are directed to return the fee along with other amount which is returnable to the students at the time of leaving the University immediately whenever any of the petitioners applies for the return of the said amount so that he may apply to any other University for the remaining period of his studies and can apply their studies.