MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J: --This appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 arises out of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.1772 of 1992 dismissing that petition,
2. The appellant was admitted to M.Sc. Zoology, Part I Class, to Bahaud Din Zakariya University in the academic year 1989-90. He took his first annual examination which was held in July, 1990 but failed to qualify. He again appeared in September, 1990 but failed.
Another attempt was made by the appellant to qualify but of no avail. The appellant submitted his examination form for the Second Annual Examination, 1991 in which it' was not disclosed that he was an old student. He was allowed to take the examination. Later on, the University learnt that the "appellant had already availed of three chances and was not eligible to re-appear in the same examination in view of Regulation No.18(b) of the Regulations relating to Conduct of Examinations as amended on 4-6-1990. The appellant thereupon filed Constitutional petition and was allowed to take the examination. It was, however, observed that his result shall not be declared. A learned Single Judge after hearing detailed arguments proceeded to dismiss the Constitutional petition vide his impugned judgment dated 22-6-1993. The learned Judge repelled the argument that the amendment in the Regulation on 4-6-1990 was not applicable to the appellant as he had been admitted to the University in the year 1989-90.
3. Before us the same argument has been reiterated by the learned counsel for the appellant who has contended that the amendment in Regulation No.18(b) could not be applied retrospectively to those students who had been admitted to the University prior to the amendment and on the basis of the regulations then enforced which did not contain any restriction on the number of chances which a student can avail of. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Miss Uzma Rashid and 5 others v. Vice-Chancellor, University of Punjab, Lahore and others PLD 1993 SC 425.
4. We are not impressed with this contention. Although it is correct that at the time when the appellant was admitted to the University, the amendment in regulation had not come and under the regulation at that time there was no embargo placed on the candidate as to the number of chances which he was to avail of but it cannot be claimed that any right stood vested in the appellant to A be governed by the regulation as enforced at the time of admission. On the other hand, it is open to the Authorities to amend the regulations keeping in view various features like the performance of candidates through proficiency and the level of excellency which is required and this regulation would apply from the date of enforcement to all students whether or not admitted before or after the enforcement of the regulation. If any authority is needed reference may be made to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Miss Sultana Khokhar and 2 others v. The University of Punjab through its Registrar PLD 1962 SC 35.
5. As regards reliance of the learned counsel on Uzma Rashid's case supra, it is to be seen that the Supreme Court of Pakistan had only granted leave to appeal against the judgment of this Court.
However, the a peal before the Supreme Court was not decided on merits but was disposed of as having borne fruit on 10-9-1993 on the basis of a statement made by the legal advisor of the University of the Punjab that a decision had been taken that those students who had sent admissions of Academic Session 1988-89 shall not be hit by the new regulation. The learned counsel appearing on behalf. Of the Bahaud Din Zakariya University on instructions stated that the University which he represents is not minded to make similar concession.
6. We may also note that the intention behind the amending regulation is salutary for, it is calculated to arrest falling standards of regulations. This Court would be loathed to interfere in such measures which are taken to bring about the best in students. We cannot loose sight of the fact that in our country due to paucity of resources higher education is not available for all but is restricted and has to be regulated. In these circumstances, we did not find to be unreasonable that a student who despite three attempts failed to qualify the examination should be asked to make way for others. This Court cannot adopt dogmatic and literal approach so as to defeat the purpose for enacting regulations to admissions to educational institutions and conduct of examinations. We are tempted to reproduce the following observations by Hamoodur Rehman, J. (as he then was) in the case of Miss Sultana Khokhar and 2 others v. The University of Punjab through its Registrar PLD 1962 SC 35 which read as under:--- " ....Before parting with this matter, we would like to add that in spite of the careful examination of the Punjab University Act and the Statutes framed thereunder we have not been able to discover therefrom anything which would support the right sought to be asserted in this case. To uphold such a right would amount to placing an impossible burden upon the University, for, then it may well have to conduct different examinations upon different standards in each year in respect of the same degree for different students or groups of students in accordance with the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations prevailing on the date of their respective admissions, even though the same may have long since been validly altered in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This could never have been the intention of the framers of the Punjab University Act. We have no hesitation, therefore, in coming to the conclusion that no such vested right exists in the examinees which can be enforced by a writ of mandamus."
For all these reasons we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear the own costs.