' QAZI FAEZ ISA, J. --- This appeal assails the order dated 10th March, 2008 of the Lahore High Court whereby it had allowed the Writ Petition No, 11143/2007 filed by respondent No, 1 (hereinafter referred to as "petition").
2. The petition was filed by respondent No, 1 who was enrolled for the Master of Science (M.Sc.) in Banking and Finance degree for the Session of 2005-07 in the Government College University, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as "University") which degree she successfully completed. Her grievance was that despite getting first position and obtaining the highest marks she was not awarded the gold medal, which is given to such student, but instead the gold medal was given to Syed Asad Ali Shah (respondent No, 2 herein). The petition was allowed by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court as the petitioner had obtained the highest marks over all as well as in each of the four Semesters and the University was directed to award her the gold medal.
3. The University is a public sector university and its affairs are governed by the Government College University, Lahore Ordinance, 2002 (Punjab Ordinance XLVIII of 2002) (hereinafter referred to as "Ordinance") and the matter of award of gold medal is attended to by the Government College University Lahore Examination Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations" enacted pursuant to the powers conferred upon the University by sub-section (2)(vii) of Section 23 read with subsection (v) of Section 127 of the Ordinance. Regulation 10.6 of the Regulations which is relevant is reproduced hereunder:--- "Gold Medal shall be awarded to a student of M.Sc. Banking and Finance who has topped the list of the successful candidates; provided that he/she has passed Semester-I, Semester-II, Semester-III and Semester-IV Final Examinations within Two years of his/her first admission in that class in first chance offered by the University. The Re-admission cases in the same or revised courses or new courses leading to the change of nomenclature of the Degree will not be considered for the award of Gold Medal/Position. The first position shall be determined by total Score obtained in Semester-I, Semester-II, Semester-III and Semester-IV Final Examinations."
4. That respondent No, 2 who was adversely affected by impugned order did not assail the decision of the Lahore High Court, and, despite issuance of notice, has not appeared before us.
5. Mian Abdul Qaddous the learned ASC appearing on behalf of the University has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds:---
(a) That at the relevant time the University was awarding marks that took into consideration the standard scores and whosoever received the highest Standard Score was awarded a gold medal and 'Standard Score' means the transformed marks, obtained using the principle of Normal Curve (Regulation 1.1 (vi) of the Regulations);
(b) That the aforesaid system of marking was changed after the University's Academic Council in its meeting of 21st July, 2007 and the University's Syndicate in its meeting of 16th February, 2008 decided to do so, whereafter marks/scores were awarded on the basis of total marks, however, since the case of the respondent No, 1 was prior to the said decision and as it was not applied retrospectively she was given marks/score pursuant to the Standard Score system (as mentioned in (a) above);
(c) That the Ordinance vide Section 50(2) had specifically saved the regulations made pursuant to the Government College Lahore Act, 1997 and the same were deemed to have been made under the Ordinance;
(d) The matter of marking was a policy matter and was within the discretion of the University and is not to be interfered with by the courts., and in this regard he placed reliance upon the following cases:--- ' Nazir Ahmad v. Pakistan (PLD 1970 Supreme Court 453)
' Radaka Corporation v. Collector of Customs (1989 SCMR 3531 ' Noor Muhammad Khan Marwat v. Vice-Chancellor (PLD 2001 Supreme Court 219)
' Muhammad Ilyas v. Bahauddin Zakariya University (2005 SCMR 961)
' Muhammad Arif v. University of Balochistan (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 564) ' Muhammad lshfaq Ahmed Siol v. Bahauddin Zakariya University (2011 SCMR 1021.
6. That respondent No, 1 appeared in person and stated that in each of the four Semesters her marks/scores were more than of respondent No, 2 and that her total marks were also considerably higher than the respondent No, 2, therefore, she was entitled to receive the University gold medal for M.Sc. Banking and Finance.
The marks/score respectively obtained by respondents No, 1 and 2 were as under:-- Respondent No, 1 {{TABLE}} Semester1234Total Marks Marks486465485~ 5211936 {{TABLE}} <u>Respondent No, 2</u> {{TABLE}} Semester1234Total Marks Marks4844614735181957 {{TABLE}} ' Respondent No, 1 stated that in view of the fact that she had obtained 1957 marks, which was 21 marks higher than the respondent No, 2 who had obtained 1936 marks, therefore, in terms of Regulation 10.6 she was entitled to receive the University gold medal.
7.Mr. Abdul Quddous, exercising his right of reply, stated that whereas the University does not deny the respective marks received by the respondents however the gold medal was awarded after deriving the Standard Score on the basis of the following formula:--- {{TABLE}} Total Number of Students S.D.
N 75 + ((g x)S.D) x "Mean = X = Sum of Marks Total Number of Students Total Number of Students Y75 + ( (x-x) / S.D) x 7)
Where EX= Actual Marks of Student S.D. = Standard Deviation EX= Sum of Marks total Number of Students N= Total Number of Students Y= Standardize Marks" {{TABLE}} ' As explained by the learned counsel the formula takes into consideration the marks of all the students and the total number of students and which impacted the marks/score of the respondent No, 1.
8. That we have also gone through the earlier Regulations filed by then University wherein the entitlement of a gold medal for Masters degree if, attended to by regulation 3.9.1 (page 265 of the paper book) which is reproduced hereunder:--- "Gold Medal shall be awarded to a student in each subject who has topped the list of the successful candidates; provided that he/she has passed the Final Examinations of all Semesters in first chance offered by the University. The Re-admission cases in the same or revised courses or new courses leading to the change of nomenclature of the Degree or cases of Semester Break/Probation/Marks Improvement will not be considered for the award of Gold Medal/Position.
The first position shall be determined on the basis of Total Marks obtained in all Semesters."
' It is noticeable that in the aforesaid regulation too there is no mention of a Standard Score. If the contention of the learned counsel for the University that the Regulation 10.6 was not relevant as the Regulations were adopted after the 20052007 session it would not make any difference as Regulation 10.6 of the Regulations and the aforesaid Regulation 3.9.1 of the earlier regulations are similar in material particulars.
9. The appellant University is a public sector University and is governed by a statute (initially the Act and then the Ordinance) which enabled it to make regulations and in exercise of the powers conferred upon the University the regulations were enacted, which have to be abided by.
Regulation 10.6 of the Regulations stipulates that the person who is entitled to receive the gold medal is required to have passed all the four semesters within two years and the first position is to be determined by the total marks/score obtained in the four semesters. Regulation 3.9.1 of the earlier regulations state that, "the first position shall be determined on the basis of Total Marks obtained in all Semesters." The definition of 'marks' in these earlier regulation means "original marks obtained by the student" (regulation 1.1 (vi)). Admittedly, the respondent No, 1 had passed the four semesters within the prescribed period and had obtained the highest marks/scores, in each of the four semesters and overall too therefore, she was entitled to receive the gold medal whether the respondents are adjudged by the earlier regulations or the subsequent Regulations. The referred to formula (reproduced in paragraph 7 above) does not find mention in either of the regulations. ,Moreover, the said formula takes into consideration factors over which an aspirant does not have control, such as total number of students and the marks obtained by them; therefore, if the formula was made the basis for determining who is to receive the gold medal it was not only extraneous to the regulations, but also illogical.
10.That as regards the contention of the learned counsel for the University Mr. Abdul Quddous, that the Courts should not interfere with the policy matters of educational institutions we completely agree with the said contention, however, this is not a matter of policy, therefore, the cases cited by the learned counsel in this regard have no application. Moreover, since the cited regulations are not open to different interpretations therefore, it cannot be stated that the interpretation resorted to by the University should be allowed to stand. The regulations are clear, are not open to interpretation, and have been enacted by the University therefore, the same must be abided by. The other cases cited by the learned counsel are either distinguishable or instead support the respondent No, 1's contention.
' In the case of Noor Muhammad the matter of the affiliation of a private institute with Gomal University came up for consideration and it was held that the same was within the domain of the university and that the High Court had rightly declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in the matter. The case is, therefore, clearly distinguishable.
' In the case of Muhammad Ilyas the petitioner had not secured the stipulated minimum cumulative grade point average ("CGPA") and sought permission to repeat his examination, but the permission was not accorded to him. ' This Court held that since the petitioner had not obtained the requisite CGPA, therefore, the University was justified to remove his name from the promotion roll. It was however observed, that the "Courts should avoid to interpret the same [the regulations of the university] 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." This observation was made in the context of the facts of the case and after it had been determined that the petitioner did not meet the requisite criteria for promotion to the next grade. Moreover, this Court did not place an absolute bar on the Courts and it was only when they were two or more possible interpretations of regulations that it would be the university which was the best judge to interpret them and not the Courts.
' In the case of Muhammad Arif a person who did not possess a Ph.D. degree sought to be appointed as a professor/associate professor, but the University declined to appoint him as it had decided to fill the vacancy with a person who possessed the qualification of Ph.D., this Court observed that:--- "It is settled principle of law that for the purpose of maintaining a Constitution petition it is the duty and obligation of the petitioners to point out that action of the respondents was in violation of their rules and regulations which the petitioners had failed to point out, therefore, learned High Court was justified to dismiss the Constitutional petition."
' In the case of Muhammad Ishfaq Ahmad Sial the petitioner had assailed the fact that his name was struck off from the roll of university as he had failed to obtain the minimum required CGPA. It was held that, "his removal from the roll was consistent with the rules and the High Court rightly declined to interfere."
11. That for the aforesaid reasons this appeal is dismissed and we direct the appellant to award respondent No, 1 gold medal for M.Sc. Banking and Finance if it has not already been awarded to her.