' Through this appeal the appellant has challenged the order dated 18-5-2010, passed by a learned Single Judge in Chambers of this Court whereby the appellant's Writ Petition No,917 of 2010 was dismissed.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant is a student in the Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpindi (hereinafter called "the University") reading for the degree of B.S. Mathematical Sciences in the Session 2009-2013, The appellant had gained admission in the University's "Bachelor's Program" on "Self Support" basis after having failed to gain admission on merit in the "Regular Program". Subsequent to her admission the appellant after having passed the examination for the first Semester moved an application to the University for transfer as a student from the "Self Support Program" to the "Regular Program". Upon her application being turned down, the appellant filed Writ Petition No,917 of 2010 which was dismissed through the impugned order dated 18-5-2010, hence this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order by, inter alia, contending that the impugned order is based on conjectures and surmises instead of cogent, concrete or plausible reasons; the act of the University infringes the fundamental rights of the appellant which fact was ignored by the learned Single Judge in Chambers as also the fact that the appellant belongs to the lower middle class, therefore, she cannot afford the fee on Self Support basis: and that the appellant has performed better than the candidates in the "Regular Program" and is, therefore, entitled to be transferred from the "Self Support Program" to the "Regular Program" . Relies on Hamza Khan v. Province of Balochistan (1995 SCM R 711).
4. The learned counsel for the University controverts the stand of the appellant and has submitted that at the time of her admission, the appellant had firstly applied under the "Regular Program". The appellant in the initial general merit list was at serial No,106 whereafter three further merit lists were prepared but the appellant failed to gain admission on merit as the last candidate in the 3rd merit list had scored 60.82% marks in her Intermediate Examination whereas the appellant had only been able to secure 51.33% marks in her Intermediate Examination. As a consequence, the appellant of her own volition applied under the "Self Support Program" and was able to gain admission. The appellant did apply to the University for transfer from the "Self Support Program" to the "Regular Program". In response thereto the appellant was directed to apply as per the University's Admission and Registration Regulations. In this respect the learned counsel has referred us to Regulation 25, which is being reproduced hereunder for ease of reference:-- "25. Transfer from Self Support to Regular Program.
' Any Self Support student wanting to attain Regular Status has to fulfill the following procedures/conditions:--
(i) The student applies in the next Session and qualifies the merit list of that Session.
(ii) As a Self Support student, the said student maintains a C.G.P.A of a minimum of 03 in the first 02 SemesteRs,
(iii) Availability of seat in the Regular Program.
' The status of the application for transfer shall be declared after due approval of the Admission Committee."
' Further submits that the appellant does not meet the above criteria inasmuch as her C.G.P.A is only 2.31. The appellant, therefore, is not eligible for transfer. So far as the question of the appellant's fundamental rights being breached is concerned the learned counsel for the University contends that no such breach has taken place. Even otherwise, submits that if the University authorities were to allow the transfer of the appellant from one program to other without following the Regulations, ibid, this would result in floodgates being opened and there would be a plethora of applications on the same lines which the Regulations, ibid, and indeed the law does not support. Contends that the appellant not having made the merit gained admission on "Self Support" basis cannot now argue that since there are seats available in the "Regular Program" she be adjusted thereagainst without following the Regulations, ibid.
5. We have heard both learned counsel at length and have also gone through the record. We have also considered the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in Chambers whilst declining to issue the writ in the appellant's favour. We do not find force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia, for the reasons that the appellant not having made it on merit cannot now be allowed to gain admission in the "Regular Program" through the backdoor. Even otherwise as has been rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge in Chambers the appellant was not the next candidate in the merit list, there were scores of candidates between the appellant and the last candidate who succeeded in getting the admission. The learned Single Judge in Chambers also held that if the appellant is given admission in the next Semester there shall be an endless race of the students on "Self Support Program" trying to have entry on Regular Basis. This shall cause the University endless problems especially given the fact that the appellant does not fulfill the conditions mentioned for admission on Regular Basis.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to repel the argument of the learned counsel for the University to the effect that it was only when the appellant had failed to gain admission on merit did the appellant of her own accord apply for admission under the "Self Support Program". She, therefore, cannot as of right claim admission in the "Regular Program". The learned counsel for the appellant has also been unable to point out any of the fundamental rights of the appellant having been violated by the act of the University authorities. The judgment cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the appellant is not attracted to the facts of the case.
7. In academic matters the University authorities are the best judges to interpret the Rules and Regulations framed by the university authorities. The Courts are required to avoid to interpret the same unless a case of grave injustice is made out otherwise it would become difficult for the universities to run their affaiRs, Reliance in this regard is placed on a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Muhammad Ilyas v. Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan and another (2005 SCM R 961) wherein it has been held that:-- "5. 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 was 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 I.C.A. 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 this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan."
8. In the instant case we find that Regulation 25, ibid, requires that a student seeking transfer from the Self Support to the Regular Programme needs to apply in the next session and that she qualifies the merit list of that session. Additionally the student should have maintained a CGPA of a minimum of 03 in the first 02 Semesters and lastly a seat should be available in the Regular Programme. In the instant case the appellant has a CGPA of 2.31 and applied for transfer in the 2nd Semester. Thus, she is not eligible under the Regulations, ibid, to obtain the transfer. Moreover, no case of grave injustice has been made out by the appellant. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Ilyas (supra) is to our minds applicable to the case in hand. By applying the same we accordingly hold that this appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.