' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Petitioner Mst. Hira Rehman has brought the instant constitutional petition against the respondents alleging therein that she was student of B.Sc. Honours in Government College University, Lahore for the sessions 2006-2010. She took admission on Self Finance Scheme and had regularly been attending the classes till the last date before commencement of the summer vacations, 2009. On reopening of the University, she came to know that her name has been struck off from the University Rolls. She made an application to respondent No,1 for re-admission in the class. She in response to the same had received a letter from respondent No,3 on 11-11-2009. She through the same had been informed that her said request had not been acceded to on the ground of low percentage in the attendance. She had made complaint against the misconduct of Girls Hostel staff. She had described the act of striking of her name from the University Rolls as an act of retaliation of the same.
' She has prayed for declaring the impugned action of her expulsion from the University as illegal, void ab initio, and of no legal consequence. She with the same has prayed for setting aside of the same and directing the respondents to re-admit her in the class.
2. The respondents have resisted her such petition in their parawise comments and report to the same. They have raised certain preliminary objections and controverted her averments in the same.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before the impugned action by the University, she was not afforded opportunity of being heard and so, the same is against the principle of natural justice and not liable to be sustained; and that the University ought to have exercised parental jurisdiction in considering her request for readmission, while, it has not been done so. In support of such pleas, the reference has been made to the case of "The University of Dacca through its Vice Chancellor and another v. Zakir Ahmad" (PLD 1965 SC 90), Muhammad Shahbaz Khan v. Superintendent, Umar Hall, B.Z.U. Multan and 2 others (2005 YLR 2434) and Miss Sumaira Nosheen v. Principal, Government College of Commerce, Vehari and 3 others (2005 M LD 1759 Lahore).
4. As against the same, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the petitioner through the instant writ petition has raised certain factual controversies, which is beyond the scope of the writ jurisdiction and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed on this short ground; that it is not correct to say that the University has not exercised parental jurisdiction in her matter, while, it was done so as she once earlier had been re-admitted in the class and she but never improved in her conduct and so, was dropped from the University Rolls on account of low percentage in her attendance in the classes as per the University rules and non payment of the fee after 28-2-2007; that her father was informed about all the notifications issued by the University in her matter but still no reply has been received from him; that non observance of issuance of show cause notice is not a rule of universal application and in this regard the reference has been made to the case of "Justice Khurshid Anwar Bhinder and others v. Federation of Pakistan and another (PLD 2010 SC 483); and that the courts do not interfere in the regulations, policy and change of the prospectus of the University; hence, the writ petition is liable to be thrown away being devoid of any merit and in this regard, the reference has been made to the case of "Yahya Gulzar v. Province of Punjab through Secretary Health, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 3 others (2001 CLC 9 Lahore).
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and gone through the copies of the record annexed to the petition.
6. The main stance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of being heard before the expulsion of her name from the University Rolls and he, in this regard, has made reference to the cases of "The University of Dacca through its Vice-Chancellor and another v. Zakir Ahmad" (PLD 1965 SC 90), Muhammad Shahbaz Khan v. Superintendent, Umar Hall, B.Z.U. Multan and 2 others (2005 YLR 2434) and Miss Sumaira Nosheen v. Principal, Government College of Commerce, Vehari and 3 others (2005 M LD 1759 Lahore). As against the same, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the name of the petitioner was expelled from the University Rolls for her earning low percentage in the attendance and non payment of the fee after 28-2-2007 and all the notifications issued by the University in that regard were sent to her father and so, they were informed in respect of the impugned action against her and so, it is not right to say that she was not informed of the same. He, in this regard, has placed reliance upon the case of "Justice Khurshid Anwar Bhinder and others v. Federation of Pakistan and another (PLD 2010 SC 483).
7. It has not been denied by the side of the petitioner that the notifications of the University in her matter were sent to her father. This, if was so, then it may be said that she was informed of the impugned action against her by the University. In the case of "Justice Khurshid Anwar Bhinder and others v. Federation of Pakistan and another (PLD 2010 SC 483), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has been pleased to express the view that reversing an action taken initially without issuing show cause notice was not a principle of universal application and undoing of such an act was refused where the facts leading to the impugned action were uncontrovertible and admitted and where despite a prior hearing, the results could and would not have been any different. This view is latest in time than the views expressed in the above cited cases by the side of the petitioner.
Hence, it is to be preferred over the views in those cases.
8. Furthermore, Government College University, Lahore is an autonomous body. It has it's own regulations, policy and the prospectus. The Courts do not interfere with these in such like petition as the said matter of the petitioner falls within the domain of working of the University. In this regard, reference is made to the case of "Yahya Gulzar v. Province of Punjab through Secretary Health, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 3 others (2001 CLC 9 Lahore).
9. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the University ought to have exercised parental jurisdiction in her matter. The same is also not with force because it has not been denied by her side that she once earlier had been re-admitted by the University in the class. Her own conduct, as had reflected from the above un-controverted stance of the respondents, is that she during her academic session had earned low percentage in the attendance of the classes, while the required percentage is 85% in each subject. It has not been explained that why she had not taken proper care in her academics. She statedly has also not paid the fee even to the University after the above said date i.e. 28-2-2007. There is no denying the fact that in the event of such a failure on the part of a student, he is liable to be struck off the rolls of the educational institution. She, so, when herself has not demonstrated any care and concern in her academic career then no further indulgence can be shown to her in the matter.
10. So, no case for interference in her matter in the exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court has been made out. The petition, therefore, is dismissed.