Through this Constitutional petition the petitioners seek direction against the University of the Punjab, Lahore, to postpone "at least for two months" examination of M.A./M.Sc. Part II which is to commence on 18-7-1996, in order to give the petitioners adequate/reasonable time to prepare for Part II Examination.
2. The brief facts are that petitioner No. l got admission in M.A. History for the Sessions 1994-96. He appeared in Part I Annual Examination but failed in the subject of Islamic History. Accordingly, he reappeared in the subject of Islamic History in Part 1, First Annual Examination of 1995 which was held in June/July, 1996. The petitioner No.2 got admission in M.Sc. (Botany) during the academic Session 1994-96. He appeared in Part I, Annual Examination but failed in all the subjects. Thereafter, he re-appeared in all the subjects in Part 1, First Annual Examination of 1995 which was held in June/July, 1996. According to him his practicals would end on 27-7-1996. The result of both is awaited.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are now required to appear in Part II, First Annual Examination of 1995 which is to commence with effect from 18-7-1996, though their Part I Examination concluded only a few days earlier. Thus only two weeks' time is left for the petitioners to make preparation for Part II Examination which is not only unreasonable but is tantamount to depriving them to appear in Part II Examination. He further contends that in the past there was practice to hold Supplementary Examination in order to give another chance to failed students, which in the case of petitioners would have been held during the month of March/April, 1996 and that would have given enough time to petitioners for preparation to appear in the forthcoming Part II Examination. Since this supplementary Examination was abolished by the University in the year 1995, it resulted in hardships to the petitioners. He further states that there is a large number of other students who were placed in similar situation like the petitioners.
4. On the Court direction, Ch. Muhammad Yaqub, Controller of Examinations, University of the Punjab, Lahore, appeared alongwith Mr. Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, Advocate. Stance taken by the University is that in the month of June, 1995 the Academic Council of the University recommended to amend Regulation No.16 of the University. This recommendation was approved by the Vice- Chancellor and accordingly with effect from Academic Session of 1995, the Supplementary Examinations were abolished. It is thus necessary to reproduce Regulation No. 16 with and without amendment: REGULATION NO. 16 BEFORE AMENDMENT During each academic year, there shall be two Examinations of Part I and two Examinations of Part-II of the Master's Degree Programme. These Examinations shall be termed as Part I Annual Examination followed by Part I Supplementary Examination, and Part II Annual Examination followed by Part II Supplementary Examination.
REGULATION N0.16 WITH AMENDMENT M.A./M.Sc. Part I and Part II Examinations be held only once at the end of Academic Session.
The exempted candidates may be allowed to appear in the failing papers of Part I along Part II Examinations (if otherwise eligible) simultaneously.
Where an exempted candidate who appears in the failing paper of Part I along Part II Examinations simultaneously fails to qualify Part I Examination but passes his/her Part II Examination, his/her result of Part II Examination be not declared till he/she passes Part I Examination under the chances permissible to him/her.
4. It is thus clear that the University Authorities decided to hold the Part I and Part II Examinations of M.A./M.Sc. Only once a year at the end of the Academic Session. However, it allowed the exempted (failed) candidates to appear in the failing paper of Part I alongwith Part II Examination. It was, therefore, in pursuance of the amended Regulation No. 16 that the petitioners and other students like them, who had failed in one or more subjects in Part I Examination, have been allowed to appear in Part II Examination starting from 18-7-1996.
5. With regard to the postponement or extension in time of the Annual Examination of Part II, commencing from 18-7-1996, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the dates of the examination have been fixed by the Syndicate of the University, therefore, the Vice-Chancellor has no authority to alter the same. He referred to the Notification No.115/AC issued by the respondent- University on 27-4-1996 notifying the Schedule of Examinations which is as follows: "It is hereby notified that the M.A./M.Sc. Part I, First Annual Examination of 1995 and M.A./M.Sc. Part II Second Annual Examination of 1994 and First Annual Examination of 1995 will commence with effect from 20th June, 1996 and 18th July, 1996 respectively."
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioners were not taken by unawares as they knew that Part II First Annual Examination of 1995 would commence with effect from 18th July, 1996 as notified on 27-4-1996. Thus not only informing them of the schedule of examinations, but also giving them enough time for preparation.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that the University has made a policy decision to hold Part II First Annual Examination of 1995 with effect from 18-7-1996 which was notified on 27-4-1996, therefore, this policy decision cannot be interfered with in exercise of its writ jurisdiction by this Court. He further submits that the policy decision was taken to gradually eliminate the time gap between the Academic Session and holding of Annual Examinations.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that about six thousand students who have to appear in Part II First Annual Examination, 1995 from 18-7-1996, shall adversely be affected and their schedule would be disturbed. Thus the inconvenience would be caused to a much larger number of students then by not changing the schedule of examination. It may also create unrest among the affected students. Besides, it would create tremendous administrative difficulties for the University, inasmuch as the whole arrangement for holding the fresh examination on the basis of such a changed schedule shall have to be made which requires much time and money. He has relied on Zamir Ahmad Khan v. Government of Pakistan 1978 SCM R 327.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent also submit that the policy decision taken by the University is not mala fide but is in the larger interest of the majority of the students who are to appear in Part II First Annual Examination of 1995, according to the announced schedule of the examination and to synchronize the academic sessions and the annual examinations.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the University Authorities by taking the policy decision with regard to the conduct of examination according to the announced schedule, has not violated any statutory provision, therefore, such a decision cannot be struck down by this Court. He has referred to Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Massadaq Naseem Sindhoo PLD 1973 Lah. 600. It is further submitted that the policy decision taken by the University Authorities is in accord with the amended Regulation No.16 and according it must be given paramount consideration as held by this Court in Rafaqat Javaid v. Chairman, Admission Board 1995 CLC 1155.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent also questions the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that all those regular students who have to appear in Part II First Annual Examination of 1995, accordingly to the Schedule, are necessary party in this case as they shall adversely be affected if any change is made in the schedule of the examination.
12. On the asking of the Court as to how this problem of the petitioners and other students similarly placed, can best be solved, the following proposals were made by the Controller of Examinations:-- -
(i) The failing students who have appeared in Part I Examination in June/July, 1996 shall be allowed to appear in Part II Examination which is to begin on 18-7-1996.
(ii) Alternatively, if these students do not appear in the Part II, First Annual Examination commencing from 18-7-1996, Special Examination shall be held for them within four weeks after the declaration of their result in Part I.
(iii) The students thus appearing in Special Examination shall be treated as regular students of their respective institutions.
These proposals were, however, not accepted by the petitioners and their fellow students who insisted upon postponement of the examination as a whole.
13. On the contrary, Mr. M.D. Tahir, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not been treated equally by the University but were discriminated in violation of Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution. While explaining the discrimination he submitted that the petitioners were given shorter period for preparation as compared to others. This explanation is misconceived inasmuch as, had the petitioners not- failed earlier they would have had equal time with the regular students. The University is not to be blamed for the petitioners' failings.
14. The main ground taken in the petition and argued before me was that reasonable time was not afforded to the petitioners to make preparation for Part II, First Annual Examination, 1995 which is to commence with effect from 18-7-1995, only after about two weeks' time when they were free from Examination of Part I. The proposals made on behalf of the University, as reproduced above, that Special Examination would be held for the petitioners and the other students similarly placed, if they do not appear in the forthcoming Part II Annual Examination, 1995, would have the effect of alleviating the hardships of the petitioners and providing them sufficient time for preparation. The University's offers that the, petitioners would be treated as regular students should also dispel the fear that they would be placed in disadvantageous position if they were to be treated as private students.
15. After giving anxious thought to this problem and the demand of the petitioners for postponement of the examination, I have come to the conclusion that grant of relief to the petitioners as prayed for in the writ petition, would not be in the larger interest of the greater number of students. If Part II First Annual Examination, 1995 scheduled to commence with effect from 18-7-1996, is postponed or date of examination is extended by two months' period as prayed for, the University Authorities shall face enormous difficulties, both administrative and financial, and might upset the schedule of the other examinations which the University is to conduct during the current year and also during the next year. Besides, the regular students who are to appear in Part II. First Annual Examination, 1995 commencing from 18-7-1996 shall be put to great inconvenience.
It would also not be just and proper that for the self-created problems of the petitioners and similarly placed students, the other regular students who are about six thousand in number, be made to face difficulties or put to inconvenience as a result of postponement of the examination.
The petitioners and similarly placed students are to be blamed as they did not qualify in Part I First Annual Examination according to schedule alongwith the other students of their academic session.
It is due to their failure that the petitioners and others had to appear in Part I Examination during the month of June/July, 1996 in one or more subjects.
16. In the light of the above discussion, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
However, it is hoped that notwithstanding the dismissal of writ petition, the respondent University shall not back out from its promises made in the form of aforesaid proposals.