Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner had got admission in the Respondent No, 1/Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan (here-in-after called as BZU, Multan) in M.Sc. Physics (semester system) at Self-Finance basis on 15.9.2006; that the petitioner dropped from the University in December, 2006 due to lack of GP whereupon he got re-admission in the first semester which was held in August 2007; that the petitioner qualified his 1st and 2nd semester in December, 2007 and May, 2008 by obtaining 2.26, 2.0 GP out of 4.0 respectively. He was promoted in third semester in May 2008 with GP 2.00 out of 4.00 with one compartment of electronics; that in August 2008 he was again dropped in third semester examination due to less GP.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner cannot be dropped in third semester but he can only be detained for third semester while the other students who were also not having got required GP were detained by the respondents and the petitioner was treated with discrimination which is unwarranted in the eyes of law. According to the petitioner he will be governed by the following rules:-- "However, if a student fails to comply with any of the conditions in fifth and subsequent semester in four years program and third in subsequent semesters in two years programs, he will be detained in that semester and he will repeat the semester. He will be promoted to the next semester on attaining a CGPA of 2.00. The students will have to complete their courses within the stipulated time for completion of degree, which is two additional semesters for two years programs and four additional semester for four years programs. However, hostel facility shall not be extended to such students."
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised certain legal and factual objections in their comments; that petitioner could not secured the requisite CGPA from 2.00 as he got obtained 1.02 GPA and 1.63 CGPA at the end of third semester therefore, he was dropped from the role of department in terms of regulations 11 (V) of the Uniform Semester System Rules; that he was allowed to complete the degree within the stipulated time (six semester to be count first semester as two years programs); that the petitioner was re-admitted by the Semester Implementation Committee on 18.4.2006 in first semester. He was readmitted on the condition the period of completion degree requirement shall not exceed of time limit provided in the statutes. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University through Vice Chancellor vs. Muhammad Ryas (2004 YLR 2638). Munir Mohsin and others vs, Vice Chancellor Baha-ud Din Zakariya University (2002 M LD 1329).
4. I have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the report/parawise comments/record.
5. Whether the petitioner will be governed by the Regulations 11 (V) of the Uniform Semester Rules or Rules mentioned in the above Para No, 2, in order to understand the controversy involved in the matter, it will be appropriate to go through relevant Regulation 11(V) of the Uniform Semester Rules notified on 14.4.2004 which reads as under:-- "Likewise at the end of each semester, a student must obtained a minimum cumulative grade point average (CGPA) of 2.0 and must also pass at least 50% of the courses taken by him in order to be promoted in the next semester. If any of the proceeding two conditions is not complied with by a student, he shall be removed from the rolls of the department."
6. The respondents/University authorities are best Judge of their own affairs. This Court normally does not interfere in the internal affairs of the University. The statutes through which University came to existence has given power to its authorities to frame the regulation qua manners, mode, conduct, standard and regularization of examination from time to time. They have powered to frame the policy in this regard, this Court while exercising the Constitutional Jurisdiction as to follow and implement the relevant regulation. It cannot be substitutes its opinion with the opinion of those who were actively involved in making such policy, merely on sympathetic considerations. There is no force in the arguments of the petitioner that he has been treated differently then other students.
He along with other students, who failed to perform well and failed to obtain the requisite GPA and CGPA. They were dropped from the Rule of the department in terms of the regularization of 11(V) of the University in order to maintain the requisite standard of the education of the University. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner their petitioner should have been detained in third semester and should be asked to repeat the semester hence rule on which the petitioner is relying will not be applicable in his case. He will be governed by the Rule of 11 (V) of the University Semester System, It is suffice to say that petitioner at the time of taking his admission was supposed to know the rule and regulations applicable to him duly notified, from time to time. The petitioner has no vested right to claim that examination be taken in a manner he likes or as per old regulation.
Prospectus or regulation is subject to change or alteration yearly basis for which student, shall be bound to obey the same. Reliance is placed on "Shafique Ahmad and others vs. The Province of Punjab" (PLD 2004 SC 168). "Ali Yousaf and others vs. Chairman Academic Dow Medical College Karachi and others, (2000 SCM R 1222). The University Authorities have powered to make their own regulations in order to achieve the high standard of education. While holding so, I am fortified by the dictum given by in case of Muhammad Ilyas vs. Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan and another (2005 SCM R 961), in which my lord Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, J., has held that: "Rules and regulations framed by the University Authorities for the purpose of conducting/regularizing its examination etc, were required to be interpreted by the University Authorities itself and Courts should avoid to interpret the same unless a case of grave injustice was made out, otherwise it would be difficult for the University administration to run its internal affairs relating to examination, etc."
The case of the petitioner was exactly similar to the case of Muhammad Ilyas supra in which the name of the student was removed/dropped in the third semester. No interference was made by the Apex Court. The impugned action of dropping the petitioner from the rule of department is neither illegal nor discriminating or harsh and same has been taken accordingly to the rules and regulations of the University. The petitioner is bound by these regulations, who has failed to make out his case of discrimination or unequal treatment by the University Authorities.
7. In the above circumstances for the forgoing reason, this petition has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Parties will bear their own costs.