' Through this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed as under:-- "(i) It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that on acceptance of this petition, the refusal of respondents in issuance of roll number slips of petitioners for appearing in supplementary examination of LL.B part 2nd with the objection of one year gap between two examination may kindly be declared unjust, illegal. Illogical, ineffective upon the rights of petitioners and liable to judicial scrutiny."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioners appeared in LL.B Part-I First Annual Examination, 2014 and Petitioner No, 1 declared failed in three subjects whereas Petitioner No, 2 failed in all the subjects; that in Second Annual Examination, 2014 (Supplementary Examination), the petitioners appeared and Petitioner No, 1 again failed in two subjects and Petitioner No, 2 failed in one subject; that both the petitioners passed LL.B Part-I in First Annual Examination, 2015; that now the petitioners are - willing to appear in Supplementary Examination of LL.B Part-II which is scheduled to be held on 10.05.2016; that the respondents did not allow the petitioners with the objection that there must be gap of one year falling between two examinations and accordingly intimated the same to the petitioners vide letter dated 13,04.2016; that the objection raised by the Examination Department is totally illegal and ineffective upon the rights of the petitioners; that as per policy, the department cannot stop the students from joining the next session until the declaration of their result and also cannot deprive them for appearing in the examination for a further period of one year in taking exams after completion of one year academic session; that the educational career of the petitioners is at stake; further contended that in so many identical matters, this Court passed direction to the. University Administration to admit the such students as eligible candidates for their appearance in LL.B Part-II (Supplementary Examination) and the case of the petitioners is at par with the said identical matters. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners referred an order dated 09.06.2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No, 3866/2015.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents contended that under Regulation 4(i)(ii) of the Calendar of the University, the petitioners are not allowed to participate in the Second Annual Examination 2015 in LL.B Part-II; that the Vice-Chancellor of Islamia University Bahawalpur after getting knowledge of the matter in issue constituted a committee and the committee decided that regulation should be implemented in letter and spirit, as such, the request of the petitioners was Tightly turned down by the competent authority which does not require for any interference by this Court.
4. I have head case and gone through the record with the able assistance of the learned .Counsels for the parties.
5. Admittedly, the petitioners appeared in LL.B Part-I annual and its supplementary examination held in 2014 but they ultimately passed LL.B Part-I in the annual examination held in 2015. The schedule of the examination as well as their result is reproduced as under:--{{TABLE}} Sr.#Name of petitionersName of examRoll No,ResultCommencement of ExaminationDate declaration of result 21.08.2014 1st A/14515 Fail 09.12.2014 06.05.2015 09.01.2015 1.M. Imran2nd A1145115 Fail 26.04.2015 07.08.2015 1st A/156880Pass02.10.2015 10.03.2016 2nd N15Not allowed10.05.2016 2 Shafqat 21.8.2014 Hussain 1st N1451T Totally9.12.2014 6.5.2015 . 9.1.2015 2nd A/145381Fail 26.4.2015 27.8.2015 1st A/156883Pass 2.10.2015 10.3.2016 15t A/15Not allowed 10.5.2016
6. It is an admitted fact that both the petitioners passed LL.B Part-I in the First Annual Examination, 2015 and now they intend to participate in LL.B Part-II in the Second Annual Examination (Supplementary 2015). Under Regulations 4(i)(ii), the petitioners are not eligible to appear in Second Annual Examination 2015 which are reproduced as under:--
4. A candidate who, having attended the prescribed number of lectures and tutorial meetings during the academic year preceding the examination, does not appear at the examination held in May or having appeared at the May examination has failed, may be allowed to appear in the subsequent examination without attending a fresh course of lectures. Provided that:
(i) Totally failed candidates or those absent from Examination shall appear in annual examination only.
(ii) Supplementary Examination shall be opened to students placed in compartment/exception.
'Provided that he shall take the examination in the syllabus in force at the time of examination."
' From the perusal of regulations mentioned above, it is very much clear is that candidates who totally failed or those who absented from the examination shall only appear in the annual examination whereas the supplementary examination shall be opened to the students placed in .Compartment/exemption force at the time provided that they shall take the examination in the syllabus in of examination, as such, the request of the petitioners was rightly turned down by the competent authority.
7. The students of Department of Law, Islamia University Bahawalpur also submitted applications seeking permission to appear in the Second Annual Examination 2015 (Supplementary), in all the paper as a fresh candidate without having appeared in 1st annual examination, the Vice- Chancellor of the University at the newly; emerged question constituted a committee to settle the issue. A meeting of the said committee was convened in the office of the Vice-Chancellor on 25.04.2016 at 11:00 0-Clock and it was decide as under: "Decision
3. It was unanimously decided that since the rules do not allow the students to appear in LL.B Part- II, Supplementary Examination afresh, they cannot be allowed as such.
4. The opinion already referred by the Department of Law to the Controller of Examinations with reference to the present case seems not relevant in this case."
It is settled law that when law prescribes anything to be done in a particular manner, it is to be done as mandated by law, any transgression would amount to stepping over the authority rendering the act without lawful authority. Reliance is placed upon Government of the Purkjab, Food Department through Secretary Food & Another vs. Messrs United Sugar Mills Limited & Another (2008 SCMR 1148) and Syed Muzahir Hussain Quadri vs. Province of Sindh & Others (PLD 2013 Sindh 285).
8. So far as arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court in Writ Petition No, 3866/2016 allowed the students to appear in the Second Annual Examination suffice it to say that in the said writ petition, the petitioners were students of LL.B Part-I in Islamia University Bahawalpur and appeared in the Annual Examination, 2014 but they were declared totally failed.
They were willing to appear in the supplementary examination held on 20.06.2015 but the university did not allow them to participate in the said, examination, whereas, in the instant writ petition, the petitioners passed LL,B Part-I in the first Annual Examination, 2015 and now they without the span of one year want to appear LL.B Part-II through the Supplementary Examination, 2015, as such, the petitioners case is not at par with the said writ petitioner. Even otherwise, it is settled law that one or any number of wrong actions could not justify with further wrongs on the ground of similar treatment or on the basis of equality as settled by the Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as Government of Punjab, through Chief Secretary & 3 Others vs. Sardar Zafar Iqbal Dogar (2011 SCMR 1239).
9. The petitioners passed the LLB Part-I in the Annual Examination, 2015 and without expiry of required span of one year and also appearing in 1st Annual Examination 2015 of LL.B Part-II they straightway, intend to appear in the Second Annual Examination, 2015 (Supplementary Examination) the request of the petitioners was turned down being against the regulations of the institution. The Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a latest judgment has laid down that the rules, regulations and criteria are to be interpreted by the University authority itself and the Courts should avoid to interpret the same. Reliance is placed upon University of Health Science, Lahore through Vice-Chancellor & Others vs. Arslan Ali & Another (2016 SCMR 134).
"7. In the light of the above, it is a settled law that in matters of admission and examination in educational institutions, the University authorities concerned are the sole judges of the criteria laid down in the prospectus. The Courts in sick matters desist from interfering due to the reason that it would create difficulties for the said institutions to run its affairs in an appropriate manner according to their rules and regulations. In this regard, this Court in the case of Muhammad Ilyas v.
Rahauddin Zakariya, University Multan and another (2005 SCMR 961) had held as under:- "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. ..."
7(sic.) In the above (perspective, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order by holding that the rules, regulations and criteria Adjourned. Re-list to be interpreted by the University authorities itself and the Courts should avoid interpreting the same. Therefore, the High Court should have desisted from interpreting the rules and regulations set out by. The University. Resultantly, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed."
' It is settled principle of law that a right to seek admission in an educational institution and to continue studies therein is always subject to rules of discipline prescribed by institution and, therefore, a student intends to pursue his studies in institution was bound by such rules. Reliance is placed upon Hafiz Muhammad Idrees Khan. & Others vs. Chancellor, Islamia University of Bahawalpur/Governor, Punjab, Lahore & Others (PLJ 2016 Lahore 341).
10. In view of above, the pray of the petitioners cannot be granted being contrary to law and against the regulation/rules of the University, as such, this writ petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits.