' MAMOON KAZI, J.---This petition, for leave to appeal, calls into question a judgment of the Lahore High Court passed in an Intra-Court Appeal, -whereby the order earlier passed by a learned Single Judge of the learned High Court, was upheld.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was granted admission to M.Sc. Zoology, Part I Class in Bahauddin Zakriya University for the academic year 1989-90. He made three attempts to clear the annual examination held each year by the said University, but failed to succeed. Before the petitioner could make a fourth attempt, the relevant Regulation was amended which debarred the petitioner from availing of the fourth chance to clear the said examination.
3. Being aggrieved by the new Regulation, the petitioner challenged the same in a writ petition which was first heard by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. Although, interim relief was granted to the petitioner at first, but subsequently his contention that, the amended Regulation was not applicable to him, was repelled by the learned Judge and the petition was, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner then filed the Intra-Court Appeal which was also dismissed as it was held that the petitioner had no vested right to be governed by the relevant Regulation as it originally stood, according to which, the petitioner could avail of a fourth chance to clear the said examination as a private candidate. Reliance was placed by the learned Judges of the High Court upon the case of Sultana Khokhar v. University of the Punjab (PLD 1962 SC 35) wherein it was held that the amendment in the Punjab University Statutes framed under Punjab University Act (XVI of 1954) could operate retrospectively to deprive the students of their right to be examined according to the Statute of the University prevailing at the time they were admitted to the relevant courses.
4. The contention raised before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been that, to appear in an examination, is a right created by the Regulations themselves and therefore, such right could not be taken away by any subsequent amendment, by allowing it to operate retrospectively.
5. The contention, however, appears to be completely devoid of force. Universities in Pakistan have been vested with powers to regulate the conduct of examinations and indisputably a complete autonomy is enjoyed by them in this regard. The relevant Regulation No,18(b) no doubt. Had earlier made such candidates eligible to appear in a subsequent examination as private candidates who had failed to clear the examination previously in three attempts, but the said Regulation was amended after approval was given by the Syndicate of the University for its amendment and the permission to allow a fourth attempt to such candidates to appear as private candidates was withdrawn. It is however, pertinent to point out that, admittedly, the amendment in question had come into force before the petitioner had made a third attempt. It, therefore, cannot be said that, the petitioner was taken by surprise as he had no knowledge in respect of the said amendment. In the case of Sultana Khokhar, referred to earlier in this judgment, the Supreme Court had observed: "No such excuse exists in the case of the present petitioners, for, the amended Statute came into operation even before the present petitioners embarked upon their final year of study. Hence it cannot be said that the University has either applied the amended Statute in a discriminatory fashion or that it has applied it retrospectively. The present petitioners had ample notice before they commenced their course of studies for the final year of the B.Sc. Honours School that they would be examined in the examinations in accordance with the amended Statute. If they did not wish to be governed by the amended Statute, they were free not to take up that course or not to offer themselves for examination at the end of the course."
However, in any case, the petitioner cannot claim any vested right to be governed by the said Regulation, as it originally was, throughout his career, till he cleared the said examination.
Sometime amendments in the regulations of Universities become necessary to improve standards of excellence of different courses. With ever increasing number of students and limited resources, the Universities have been found morekeen to provide better opportunities to more deserving students. Therefore, recognition of any such right may create insurmountable problems for the Universities and may also arrest the process of improvement which may be undertaken by them.
We, therefore, find that the judgment of the Lahore High Court is not open to exception.
6. In the result, the petition is dismissed.