' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---Through this Intra-Court Appeal, the appellant has assailed the order dated 27-11-2006 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No,12589 of 2006 who maintained the order dated 10-11-2006 passed by respondent-Institute whereby the petitioner was declared "fail" in Bachelor of Information Technology [BS(IT)].
2. Precisely stated the facts giving rise to the filing of this I.C.A. Are that the appellant got admission in 4-years BS(IT) containing 8 Semesters in COMSATS Institute. Till 2004, all the record was manual.
Later on the record was computerized through "Comsis" program and the students were directed to check their results through the said program. At that time, the appellant had already completed her six semesteRs, In accordance with the direction of the respondent-Institute, the appellant also checked her result and was shocked to see that, she was declared "Fail" in 4th semester. The appellant immediately filed an application to the Head of Department which was turned down on the ground that the appellant had been declared "fail" due to shortage of lectures. The appellant also filed an application dated 18-10-2006 to the Director of the Institute for redressal of her grievance who vide memo dated 10-11-2006 confirmed that the appellant had failed due to short of lecture attendance. Despite the representation, the respondent-Institute did not take any positive step, so the appellant filed a Writ Petition No,12589 of 2006 with the prayer that the petitioner be declared successful as the petitioner had qualified all the 8 semesters prescribed for BS(IT) but the learned Single Judge in Chambers vide order dated 27-11-2006 dismissed the writ petition in limine. Hence this ICA.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant has qualified all the 8 semesters as well as final project and she is now entitled to get a final degree which has been detained by the respondent-Institute. Learned counsel further argues that the appellant was never served with a notice about her result that due to short of attendance, she has been declared "fail" in the 4th semester, therefore, the I.C.A. Be allowed, the impugned orders dated 27-11-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers as well as the impugned order dated 10-112006 whereby the appellant was declared "fail" in 4th semester due to short of attendance be set aside.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed this I.C.A. On the aground that there is no provision of show-cause notice in the rules of the COMSATS Institute, however, the learned counsel admits that the appellant was declared "fail" due to short of attendance. He also admits that the appellant has. Qualified 8 semesters of BS(IT) but could not be declared "successful" due to short of attendance of lectures.
5. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record to the extent available on file.
6. It is not denied by learned counsel for the respondent-Institute that the appellant has already completed all the 8 semesters prescribed for BS(IT) successfully as well as the final project and if she would have not been declared unsuccessful in the 4th semester because of short of lecture attendance, the appellant was entitled to get a final degree. However, there is no evidence on the record that the respondent-institute served any notice of show-cause or communicated result of failure to the appellant through any mode till the appellant herself gained knowledge of its in 2005 when she had already completed six semesteRs, Even, the respondent-institute did not intimate the appellant that she was not entitled to join the next semester rather the appellant continued her education and qualify upto 8th semester as well as the final project.
7. It was incumbent upon the respondent-Institute that when the appellant was declared "fail", the respondent-institute must have conveyed the result to the appellant and also that she was not entitled to continue her further studies/semesters and the appellant would have been dislodged by the respondent, institute to continue her studies. On the contrary, the respondent-Institute never restrained the appellant to continue her studies nor issued any show-cause notice which is a glaring mistake on the part of the respondent-Institute, as such, the appellant could not be penalized for the irregularity committed by the respondent-Institute. Rather, the respondent- institute extended implied consent to the appellant to continue with her studies.
8. So far as the question of natural justice is concerned, irrespective of the fact as to whether it has been provided in a statute or not, the show-cause notice is must because no adverse order could be passed against any person unless he has been provided with an opportunity of being heard.
9. The maxim audi alterm partem (i.e., no one shall be condemned unheard) is not confined to only judicial proceedings but it extends to all proceedings affecting persons or property of a party. Mere absence of provision of notice in the statute cannot override the principle of natural justice. No order that affects the rights of any person can be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to such a party. We are fortified by the dictum laid down in the case titled, "Commissioner Income Tax v. Fazal ur Rehman", reported as PLD 1964 SC 410.
10. For what has been discussed above, it stands fully established that though the appellant has completed all her 8 semesters of M(IT) but she was declared "fail" in Semester No,4 due to short of lecture attendance. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, this ICA is accepted, the impugned order dated 27-11-2006 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No, 12589 of 2006 and the order dated 10-11-2006 passed by the respondent-Institute are set aside. The respondent-institute is directed to mark the appellant present in 4th Semester, declare her "Successful" and issue her degree of BS(IT) as prayed for in the I.C.A.