ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, J.--- Petitioner, has filed the instant constitutional petition with the following prayer.
"It is therefore, humbly prayed that on acceptance of this writ petition, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to declare the denial of the respondents of not granting/ awarding the decree in M.Sc.(Electrical Engineering) isunlawful, without lawfulauthority and direct them to immediately award the decree in M.Sc. ( Electrical Engineering) in favour of the petitioner."
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the records reveal that the petitioner after completion of his B.E (Computer System Engineering) gotadmission in M.Sc Electrical(Communication and ElectronicsEngineering) in the University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar. He was supposed to complete total 30 credit hour, including 6 credit hours for research. The 24 credit hours course was consist of maximum 6 courses from the core area of specialization. Under the rules, a candidate was under obligation to inform the authority about his withdrawal from a course within 6 weeks of the beginning of the classes by applying on the prescribed proforma and in such case a grade of "W" be reported. In the instant case the petitioner initially selected certain courses and subsequently got admission in another courses, without furnishing any information to the respondents/department, less filing application on prescribed proforma for withdrawal of courses. On completion of courses, admittedly he was issued an interim transcript, reflecting his Cumulative Grade Point Average ( herein after referred to as CGPA) as 3.08, therefore, he was held legible to complete his research work under the supervisor-ship of Professor Dr. Muhammad Inayat Ullah Babar. On completion of the research work, the petitioner submitted application for awarding of final transcript which was refused as the petitioner has scored only 2.06 CGPA and has failed to achieve the required CGPA \ i.e. 2.67 which is minimum requirement for awarding of M.Sc degree.
Petitioner is not denying the change of courses without permission and prior approval of the authority, however, his main thrust of argument is that the interim transcript has been issued in his favour after computing 24 credit hours and thereafter the respondents were left with no authority to alter and reduce the CGPA from 3.08 to 2.06. This argument of learned counsel for petitioner did not persuade us, for the reason that the certificate namely "interim transcript" divulged that any entry appearing in this transcript would not itself confer any right or privilege independently to the grant of proper certificate/diploma/degree which would be issued under the regulation in the due course after completion of all the requirements for such an award by the candidates. The record further reveal that the petitioner has been awarded grade "F" in 6 different courses and total quality points in all the courses come to 74.01, which is equal to 2.06 CGPA.
3. It is also undeniable fact that as perpost graduate prospectus of the university a student may be allowed to withdraw from courses within 6 weeks of commencement of classes in the relevant semester. In the case in hand the petitioner failed to bring a shred of evidence on record suggesting the fact that he has applied for grade "W" well within time. A belated approach for conversion of grade "W" has rightly not been entertained by the university authority. It is also manifest from the record that the petitioner has received grade "F" for three times in a course being code No. EE5278 ( Random Signal and Noise), while as per rules a student has only one chance to improve the grade by repeating the course. During arguments learnedcounsel forrespondents/University appraised the Court that the petitioner hasreceived grade "F" once in course i.e. EE-5384 (Telecom Switching & Signaling Systems), EE-5290 (Propagation for Wireless Communication). Similarly he has received grade "F" once and later on grade "W" once in the course being code No. EE5287 (Fiber Optic Communication Systems) thus he has one chance to improve his grade in anyone of these three courses as according to rule a student may improve grade "F" in a maximum of 2 courses during M.Sc program, and in one course referred to above i.e. EE-5278 (Random Signal and Noise) he has availed the facility of improvement, while have a chance to avail another one, which may enable him to improve his CGPA up to the minimum required for awarding M.Sc degree.
4. From the above it is manifest that the issuance of interim transcript only indicates the existing academic status of the student and any entry in it does not confer any right or privilege independently to grant a proper final degree. The grant of degree is subject to completion of requirement under the rules. Record also 'depict that the petitioner while submitting a request for issuance of degree and final detail mark sheet of M.Sc Electrical Engineering Programme, has admitted the fact that during course of study he could not get the desired grade in some courses due to some family problems. At the first time he requested that the courses in which the petitioner received " F" grade be converted into grade "W" which is not permissible under the prospectus andregulation, particularly after commencement of the prescribed time limit of 6 weeks of the courses. There is no cavil to the proposition that the universities are the best judges in their own affairs and High Court normally did not interfere in their internal affairs. Under statutesthrough which university came to existence has given power to its authorities to frame regulation qua manners, mode, conduct, standard and regularization of examination from time to time, they have the power to frame policy in that regard. This Court while exercising the constitutional jurisdiction has to follow and implement the regulation adopted by the universities and cannot substitute its opinion with the opinion of those who are actively involved in making of the policies, merely on the ground of sympathetic consideration. The petitioner could not substantiate that he has been treated differently from other students or against terms and conditions enumerated in the regulation of university. The petitioner has no vested right to claim the modification and alteration in the statute and regulation in a manner he likes. Suffice it to say, the university authorities have thepower to make their own regulation in order to achieve the high standard ofeducation which cannot be castrated andchanged for a particular student. While holding so, we are fortified by the dictumof Apex Court rendered in case titled "Muhammad Ilyas v. Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan and another (2005 SCM R 961), the relevant para of which is transcripted below:-- "Rules and regulations framed bythe 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 is not made out otherwise it would be difficult for University administration to run its internal affairs relating to examination, etc."
5. In this view of the matter, the petitioner failed to make out a case for indulgence of this Court under its extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction, thus writ petition in hand is dismissed accordingly.