MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR, J.- The petitioner is a student in the Federal Government College for Women, Rawalpindi Cantt: She had to appear in the annual examination of 1991 but was detained alongwith nine other students by the Principal of the College. She has assailed the action/order of the Principal as being malafide, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
2. The petitioner's learned counsel contends that the petitioner has bright academic career; had obtained 469(out of 800) marks in the BA. Examination and was selected for MA. English class out of about I0O students. He submits that she had cleared her dues in full and completed the requisite number of lectures and was thus eligible to appear in the MA. Previous Examination as a regular student of the college and the Principal had no lawful authority to refuse to send her form for the examination. He further submits that action was taken against the petitioner in violation of the principles of the natural justice as no reasonable opportunity of being heard was afforded to her.
On the' other hand the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the action was taken on the basis of the rules/statutes framed by the Vice Chancellor under Section 15(3) of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973, which were approved by the Academic Council on 30.5.1983.Thereafter, the Syndicate and the Senate approved the rules/statutes in their meeting held on 11.10.1984 and 273.1990 respectively. Thus the action was taken by the Principal with lawful authority. He submits that the petitioner faired poorly in her monthly tests as well as the sent up examination. The result of her monthly test was as follows: - October, 1990------ 2 1/2/10 November, 1990 ------- 2/10 December, 1990 --- 3/10 January, 1991----- -2 3/2/10 February, 1991---- - 2/15 In the sent up examination her result was as follows: Paper I ---- 22/100 Paper II --- ----- 24/100 Paper III -- ----- 24/100 Paper IV -- ----- 24/100 Paper V --- ----- -24/100 She was also given a chance to appear in the examination during the pendency of the writ petition and her result in the said examination was as follows:- Paper I------------ 14/100 Paper II----------- 16/100 Paper III---------- 15/100 Paper IV---------- 22/100 Paper V ---- 22/100 He submits t He submits that in detain her. However, she was permitted to attend the class and to appear in the examination as a private student. He adds that no discrimination was made qua the petitioner because nine other students were also detamed&ed in the like manner. In reply the learned counsel for the petitioner questioned the validity of the statutes/rules and submitted that there was no genuine emergency to justify framing of rules/statutes by the Vice Chancellor under his emergency powers. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the cases of University of the Punjab and 2 others Vs. Rehmatullah (PLD 1982 Lahore 729) Ch. Muhammad Aslam Vs. Amanullah and others (PLD 1990 Lahore 330), and Hdmidullah Jan Vs. The Sports Selection Committee and others.
3. In the writ petition the petitioner did not assail the vires of the regulations of the statutes and has merely challenged the action taken by the Principal in refusing to send her form for the University Examination of MA. Part I. It appears that the petitioner was not aware of the existence of the regulations/statutes approved by the Vice Chancellor in exercise of his power under section 15(3) of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973. A copy of the regulations/statutes was placed on the record with the written statement filed by respondents No.1 and 2. Even after coming to know about the existence of the regulations/statutes having a bearing on the controversy involved in the writ petition no effort was made by the petitioner to amend the petition and lay a challenge to the validity of the regulations/statutes. However, the petitioner's learned counsel verbally urged that the regulations/statutes were wrongly framed by the Vice Chancellor as no emergency existed to call for action under section 15(3) of the Act and in any case his action was not approved by the competent body/authority. I am afraid there is no substance in the argument raised by the petitioner's learned counsel. The material placed on the record and the relevant record of the University produced by the representative of respondent No.3 shows that the statutes and regulations were not initially framed by the Vice Chancellor. These were framed by a sub- Committee of the Academic Council on 3.3.1981. In the ordinary course the regulations require approval of the Syndicate and the statutes, of the Senate. However, the Vice Chancellor in exercise of his powers under section 15 (3) of the Act granted approval to the Regulations and the Statutes on 24.3.1982. Thereafter, the Regulations were duly approved by the Academic Council in its meeting held on 30.5.1982 and the Syndicate onb II. 10.1986. The Statutes were approved by the Senate on 27.3.1990. Thus it is evident that in due course the Regulations and the Statutes were duly approved by the competent authorities. It maybe mentioned that the Regulations approved by the Vice Chancellor on 24.3.1982, received assent of the Syndicate on 11.10.1984. No further approval of the Syndicate was required in respect of the Regulations. Only the Statutes needed approval of the Syndicate by virtue of provisions of section 32 (2) of the Act, which in the present case was accorded on 27.3.1990. The Regulations lawfully hold the field since 11.10.1984, when approved by the Syndicate. The law has clothed the Vice Chancellor with necessary powers under section 15(3) of the Act to take all kinds of administrative, executive and legislative actions for running the affairs of the University. The question whether in the case in hand circumstances existed to justify exercise of powers under section 15(3) of the Act is one of the fact and has not been even raised in the writ petition but only urged at the time of final hearing of the petition. Ordinarily, all official acts are presumed to have been lawfully and properly done unless the contrary is proved. The petitioner has not been able to show that the action of the Vice Chancellor was beyond the limits of the authority vested in him under the law. The judgment in the case of University of the Punjab Vs. Rehmatullah relied upon by the petitioner's learned counsel is distinguishable as in that case the impugned Regulations were initially prepared by the Vice Chancellor and he himself accorded approval to the same although the Academic Council was in existence but was not allowed to perform its prescribed function. The ratio of the judgment is that in a suitable case the Vice Chancellor can replace the approving body but was not empowered to act both for proposing and the approving authority; However, in the present case the regulations/statutes were proposed/framed by the sub-Committee of the Academic Council and laid before the Vice Chancellor for his approval.
4. Under Regulation No.17, a student is not permitted to take Part I or Part II examination as a regular student unless his examination/admission form is duly signed by the Principal of the College certifying the following:
(a) the student concerned has been on rolls of the Department /Institute/College during the academic year immediately preceding the examination;
(b) he has attended subject to the provision of regulation 15 above, not less than 75% of the total number of lectures delivered to his class, in each paper, separately in theory and practicals, during the academic year immediately preceding the examination;
(c) his performance, as judged through class tests assignments etc., has been satisfactory,
(d) his character and conduct have been good;
(e) he has cleared all the. Dues of the University/college(including Hostel dues) and has paid, in full, the prescribed examination fee, and
(f) he has, in case of Part II Examination, passed the Part I Examination in accordance with the prescribed Regulations.
Thus the performance of a student judged through class tests, assignments etc. If not satisfactory can result in refusal to permit the student to appear in the examination as a regular student. In the present case the petitioners performance judged from class tests and sent-up examination and additional chance of examination offered to her during the pendency of the petition was extremely poor. No discrimination was made against her because nine other students were also detained.
The petitioner may appear in Part I examination as a private candidate ia the MA/M.Sc.
(composite) examination of the University at provided under regulations.
5. For the foregoing discussion I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.