' This order will dispose of the following writ petitions in which common question of facts and law are involved: W.P. 744/1995, W.P.3936/1995, W.P. 4594/1995 W.P. 5508/1995, W.P.5511/1995 and W.P.
13479/1995.
' W.P. 744 of 1995 and W.P.13479 of 1995: ' Petitioner Atiq-ur-Rehman filed Writ Petition No,744 of 1995 challenging the notification issued on 4-4-1994 by the respondent University on the basis of Regulation No,18 of the University of Engineering and Technology as amended, which is as follows:-- "A candidate who does not pass in a minimum of 5 papers (including at least two theory papers) on the basis of combined results of the annual and supplementary examinations of the first year shall not be allowed to appear in any subsequent examination and his name shall be removed from the rolls of the University."
2. It is averred in the Writ Petition that the petitioner who was admitted in the academic session of 1992-93 appeared in annual examination of 1994 of the first year and qualified one theory and three practical papers and in the supplementary examination could not clear any paper.
3. The report and parawise comments were called from the respondent which were accordingly filed on 8-2-1995. By my order dated 19-4-1995 the petitioner was allowed provisionally to appear in the remaining papers of the first year examination. This order also made it clear to the petitioner that no right or benefit would accrue to the petitioner by his appearing in the examination, unless the writ petition was finally decided in his favour. During the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner filed W.P. 13479 of 1995 again challenging the aforesaid notification which contained amended Regulation No,18 and for further permission to appear in the examination which according to him was scheduled to be held with effect from 9-10-1995. In the second writ petition the petitioner in para. 17 stated as follows:-- "That in consequence of the order of this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination. It may be submitted here that the above mentioned gracious order was passed on 19-4-1995 whereas the examination of two papers had already been held on 15-4-1995 and 19-4- 1995. Resultantly the petitioner could not appear in those two papers."
' However, in para.9 he further stated as follows:-- "That as the petitioner was in a very precarious condition he could not appear in two papers which had been held on 29-4-1995 and 20-5-1995 and subsequently he could only appear in examination of two papers which were held on 25-5-1995 and 29-5-1995."
4. Admittedly even after the order of this Court dated 19-4-1995, examination of many papers was held. In two papers the petitioner did not appear but the petitioner did not pass in any of the remaining papers. Learned counsel for the respondent placed on record the final result of the petitioner, according to which in all he has so far passed only in 4 papers in spite of the fact that he availed three chances i,e, annual examination, supplementary examination and an additional chance under the order of this Court dated 19-4-1995. Under Regulation No,18 the petitioner had to pass in at least 5 papers including two theory papers; during one year, in, annual and supplementary examinations. The petitioner availed three chances instead of two chances but still could not qualify minimum number of papers and thus disqualified himself from appearing in any subsequent examination.
5. W.P. 3936 of 1995. The petitioner Talal was admitted in the first year for the session 1993-94. He appeared in the first annual examination and cleared one theory and two practical papers and in the supplementary examination he passed in another practical paper and thus failed to qualify minimum number of papers as required under Regulation 18 and was removed from the University.
He filed W.P. No,3936 of 1995 and in pursuance of the order of this Court passed on 19-4-1995, the petitioner was also provisionally allowed to appear in the examination which was held during the month of April/May, 1995. The petitioner admittedly did not qualify even one paper in the examination which was held in April/May, 1995 in which he appeared under the order of this Court.
This is admitted by the petitioner himself in his application (C.M. 3580 of 1995). Furthermore, the result of the first year of Talal has also been placed on record by the respondent, according to which he had qualified only in 4 papers in all the three examinations in which he appeared.
6. W.P. 4594 of 1995. The petitioner Waseem Abbas was admitted in the first year or the respondent University for the Sessions 1992-93 in Electrical Trade. The petitioner appeared in the First annual examination and passed in one theory and 4 practical papers and thus was removed from the University under the impugned Notification. Waseem Abbas filed the present writ petition and through the interim order was allowed to appear provisionally in the examination which was held in the months of April/May, 1995. However, he again failed to qualify minimum number of papers in accordance with Regulation No,18. Thus in three attempts the petitioner failed to pass in two theory papers. The result sheet of the petitioner placed on record by the respondent University shows that the petitioner has passed in only one theory paper as also admitted by him.
7. W.P. 5508 of 1995. Petitioner Babar Hussain was admitted in the first year of the Session 1992-93.
He appeared in the First Year Annual Examination 1993 and qualified in one theory and 5 practical papers. He again appeared in the supplementary examination. Thereafter in pursuance of the Court's order date 2-5-1995 he was provisionally allowed to appear in the examination. The result sheet of the petitioner has also been placed on record by the respondent University which shows that he has passed only in one theory and 5 practical papers and thus, disqualified under Regulation No,18.
8. W.P. 5511 of 1995. The petitioner Muhammad Hussain Yousaf was admitted to first year in the respondent University during the session 1992-93. He appeared in the First Year Examination of 1993 and qualified in one theory and 5 practical papers. The petitioner was provisionally allowed to appear in the examination vide order of this Court passed in W.P. 5511 of 1995 on 2-5-1995.
9. The respondent's learned counsel submits that the petitioner although given three chances as against two chances provided under Regulation 18, could not qualify in the minimum number of papers. In all the aforesaid writ petitions the main ground was that Regulation No, 18 was discriminatory and harsh. Learned counsel for the petitioner half-heartedly argued that Regulation No,18 is against Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 as in similar circumstances in other Provinces of Pakistan there is no provision similar to Regulation No,18.
10. This point was also agitated in W.P. 1333 of 1988 which was decided on 14-7-1994 by this Court. It was held by the learned Judge who decided the writ petition as follows:-- "On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 argued that respondent No,1 in 1985 decided to shift the examination system to annual system. Since time was short, therefore, the detailed regulations could not be made but it was provided in Regulation 32.1 that the regulations regarding teaching as well as examination under the annual system shall be applicable as approved by the competent authorities. It is thereafter that Regulation 32.18 was framed, therefore, it is not being given retrospective effect and the arguments are utterly misconceived. It is added that there is no discrimination rendering the regulation ultra vires of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. All the students granted admission in November, 1985 onwards are required to clear in the First Annual and Supplementary Examination two theory and two practical papers. There is no discrimination whatsoever. It is added that the discrimination is to be seen vis- a-vis the same class and category of students on the campus of university and not the whole world around. Therefore, there interference to Prospectuses of Mirpur Colleges, Azad Kashmir, Dow Medical College, Karachi and N.-W.F.P. University Peshawar is irrelevant."
' It was further held in this precedent case as follows:-- "It is added that the regulations are neither discriminatory nor unreasonable, therefore, there is no merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners."
11. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that Regulation No,18 was validly framed by the competent authority and is not violative of Article 25 of the Constitution as the same is not discriminatory. He also submitted that in the Prospectuses similar provisions as that of Regulation No,18 was made so that students were aware of this fact even at the time of admission.
' Regulation No,18 of the Calendar of University is as follows:-- "A candidate who does not pass in minimum of 5 papers (including at least two theory papers) on the basis of combined results of the annual and supplementary examination of the first year shall, not be allowed to appear in any subsequent examination and his name shall be removed from the rolls of the University."
12. In the light of the above discussions all the petitioners in the above writ petitions have become disqualified under Regulation 18, quoted above, therefore, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned notification, whereby the petitioners have been removed from the rolls of the respondent University.
' All these writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.