' ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.---Through instant petition the petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to grant sessional marks of six semester and declare letter dated 03.04.2015 issued by respondent No,2 as illegal, unlawful, discriminatory and against the natural justice.
2. Briefly the facts of the petition are that the petitioner being student of Quaid-Awam Engineering College of Science and Technology (QUEST) Larkana after appearance in 5th semester held in May/June 2014, on her succeeding in test conducted under Global Undergraduate Exchange Program for Pakistan(Global Ugrad Fall 2014) she was allowed to attend said program at USA vide letter dated 22.04.2014 issued by respondent No,2 with the approval of respondent No,1, which she successfully completed at Middle Teneesee State University USA and obtained such certificate of recognition and participation. On 15.12.2014 petitioner returned back and joined her college, thereafter appeared in 6th semester held in January/February, 2015. The grievance of the petitioner started when the request of Chairman Electronic Engineering Department (QUEST) Larkana for grant of sessional marks to the petitioner was declined by respondent No,2 vide his letter dated 03.04.2015 and rather issued orders for term back of the petitioner for 5th term though according to the petitioner after completing one semester at USA, she appeared in both semesters held in January/February 2014, is studying and attending classes for 7th term.
3. The respondents Nos,1 to 3 in their comments admitted the claim of the petitioner to the extent that she had appeared in the test conducted under Global Undergraduate Exchange Program for Pakistan (Global Ugrad Fall 2014) for one semester at Middle Teneesee State University USA and granting her permission by the respondent No,2. According to these respondents the petitioner has neither done sessional works nor attendance marks are at her credit due to remaining absent from her class of 6th semester, therefore, as per rele :ant rules she was not entitled to appear in 6th semester examination even the Chairman Electronics Department was not empowered to allow her to appear in 6th semester examination.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents Nos,1 to 4 and learned AAG Sindh.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner passed her previous term/semesters in flying colors whereby she obtained 'A' grade and 'A-1' grade; that to qualify for Global under graduate program at USA, she obtained highest percentage of marks and was selected as such the University Administration allowed her to appear in USA University for one semester vide letter dated 22.04.2014 issued by respondent No,2 whereby the petitioner was relieved from the institution and on return she appeared in 6th semester, therefore withholding of the result of the petitioner was contrary to law. It is further contended that in the identical case one Sohail Jabbar Sheikh obtained NOC for the similar program in the year 2013 and moved for USA on passing the said semester, was allowed to appear in examination of the term as such on rule of consistency the present petitioner is also entitled to same treatment. In support of his contentions the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following case laws:--
1. Ayesha Fida v. Government of N. W. F. P. (2004 CLC 1160).
2. Ms. Shakeela v. University of Peshawar (PLD 2003 Peshawar 69).
3. Chairman, Joint Admission Committee Khyber Medical College, Peshawar and others v. Raza Hassan and others (1999 SCMR 965)
4. Rabia Talib v. Vice Chanellor, Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University, Multan and 6 others (2008 YLR 2858 (Lahore).
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Nos,1 to 3 has argued the same grounds of their comments and submitted that under the rules at the end of each term the marks of the attendance, sessional work and laboratory work are to be secured by the student which are not in the credit of the petitioner, thus she is not entitled to be permitted to appear in the term. He has further submitted that the respondent No,3 institution had no concern with the program which she attended at USA University. Therefore, she was rightly made term back. Lastly, he submitted that the case of Sohail Jabbar Sheikh of the year 2013 was a mistake on the part of the University Administration so the same could not be made as precedent. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on the following case laws:--
1. Muhammad Abdullah Riaz v. University of Health Sciences (UHS), Lahore and another (PLD 2011 Lahore 555)
2. Memoona Noureen v. Vice-Chancellor, Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpindi (2011 CLC 230)
3. Muhammad Ryas v. Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan and another (2005 SCMR 961)
4. Junaid Jamshed v. University of Health Sciences and others (2015 CLC 65)
7. Learned AAG however supported the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and further argued that such type of students should be encouraged in their study.
8. It is admitted position on record that the petitioner was allowed by respondent No,2 to the Global Undergraduate Exchange Program for Pakistan (Global UGRAD Fall 2014) for one semester from August, 2014 with a condition that she would be expected to be studying in the 6th semester of her studies. On return from USA petitioner produced the certificate of successfully completion of the program/required semester of USA University. The certificate of recognition and participation of petitioner in the above program at USA is not denied. It is also matter of record that on the basis of NOC issued by respondent No,2 and her certificate of completion of the program by petitioner at USA University, she was provisionally allowed to appear in the exams of 5th semester being running in the department and simultaneously Chairman Electronics Engineering Department (QUEST)
Larkana respondent No,4 vide his letter No,QUEST/ES 379 dated 23.2.2015 made a request to respondent No,3 for grant of sessional marks to her in the result of sessional works exclusively being performed by her and to appear in exams, which was declined by respondent No,2 vide impugned letter.
9. The letter of responder No,2 dated 03.04.2015 (impugned) letter declining the request of respondent No,4 for appearance of petitioner in exams on the face of it is unjustified as no reason is given for declination of the request made on behalf of the petitioner nor any reference or rules has been mentioned therein which debars the petitioner from allowing sessional marks and appearance in exams. When respondent No,2 himself allowed the petitioner to attend and participate the above mentioned program for one semester at USA University her certificate of participation in the said program ought to have been recognized by the respondents. The contentions of respondents Nos,1 to 3 in para 4 of para wise comments that QUEST Nawabshah or Larkana had no concern or understanding with said exchange program at Middle Tennessee State University USA and non-exemption of petitioner from the requisite percentage of attendance and sessions work is without substance and untenable for the reasons that if they had no concern, respondent No,2 was not supposed to allow and relieve the petitioner to appear in the said program vide his letter dated 22.04.2014.
10. Besides this if she was not exempted from having requisite percentage of attendance and sessional work that condition should have been mentioned in the relieving letter but no such condition was mentioned in the said letter, even in comments the respondents have not mentioned as to why respondent No,2 issued such relieving letter. It has also come on record that before the case of the petitioner one student Sohail Jabbar had been granted NOC and allowed to attend same program for spring 2013 to study a complete semester of full time no non-degree education and on return he was allowed to appear in term subjects, as such, the petitioner being on same footing is entitled to be treated at par. Since the petitioner had gone and attended the course of above mentioned program at USA University with the permission of respondent No,2, she is entitled to permission sought by respondent No,4 vide his letter No, QUEST/ES-379 dated 23.02.2015. Consequently, the impugned letter is declared discriminatory and against the natural justice.
11. The case law relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent is distinguishable and has no relevancy to the facts and circumstances of the present case hence the same is not applicable to the petitioner's case while the case law relied upon by the petitioner's counsel supports his version.
12. In view of the above discussion, the petition stands allowed.