1. C.H IJAZ AHMAD, J.- Brief facts out of which the present Writ Petition arises are that the petitioner appeared in the B.Ed Examination IInd Annual 1991 and First Annual 1992 under Roll No. 1721. The respondents declared his result and the petitioner secured 520 marks out of 1100 marks. The detail of marks obtained in each paper is as follows:- ((Table))
2. Paper i: Perspectives of Education 48100 in Pakistan. Paper ii: Educational Psychology 48,100 Paper iii: School Administration 43 100 Paper iv (i): Educational Evaluation 22/50 Paper iv: (ii) Educational Research I6 50, Paper v: Urdu Language and Literature 36/100.
3. Paper vi: (i) Islamic Studies 35 100.
(ii) Pakistan Studies 18/40.
4. Paper vii. (i) Western Education Thought 54/T00.
(ii) Individual Research -TOO.
5. Project: (iii) Functional English: -/TOO.
(iv) Fikr-e-Iqbal: -TOO.
6. [Vol. XYII Muhammad Asad Ullah V. Vice Chancellor C.C. 171 (Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J)
7. ELECTIVE PAPERS Paper VIH: Teach of English. 33/100.
8. Paper IX: Teaching of Islamia! 61/100.
9. Paper II: Practical skill in 115/200.
10. Teaching.
11. ((Table))
12. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner is eligible to appear in the failing papers till lst Annual examination 1994. The petitioner subsequently-appeared in Second Annual examination 1992 and 1st Annual Examination 1993 under Roll No. 3093. The respondents declared his result and the petitioner was eligible to reappear in the failing papers till 1st Annual Examination 1994. The petitioner's counsel contended that by virtue of regulation VII of the Bachelor of Education Examination, the petitioner Is entitled to be declared pass by the respondents as the minimum number of marks required to pass this examination in Theory be 33% in each paper, provided that a candidate, who failed in one paper by three marks or less be deemed to have pass the examination if he took the examination in all the subjects at one time. He further urged that he got 33% marks in all the papers except in paper IV (ii) Educational Research (16/50). He appeared in all the papers in all the subjects at one time in the First Annual and Second Annual Examination 1991 and First Annual 1992 under Roll No. 1721, therefore, he was failed only in the said paper by one mark and he was entitled to be declared pass on the basis of the Regulation VII. He further argued that the action of the respondent was based on mala fide. He further argued that in the similar circumstance the respondent gave benefit of Regulation VII to another candidate Roll No. 2626 but discriminately the respondent did not give the benefit of this regulation to the petitioner. He further argued that respondent mala fidley raised the minimum number of marks required to pass the examination in Theory 40% in each paper instead of 33% in each paper. He further argued that the respondent only amended the regulation for the examination held by them IInd Annual Examination 1991 and First Annual 1992. The respondent subsequently amended this regulation and from the examination of Annual 1993 and approved the minimum number of marks to pass the examination in Theory be 33% in each paper instead of 40% in each paper. The leamed counsel further contended that this Court has jurisdiction to see the reasonableness of the orders passed by the respondents. He relied upon "Rai Mazhar Iqbal and another v. University of Punjab, Lahore"
13. (1992 CLC 1158).
3. The leamed counsel for the respondent contended that existing rule was amended by the competent body under the relevant provisions of the Act which was duly approved by the Vice Chancellor on 13.8:1990 with the following conditions:- "The amended Statutes/Regulations will be effective from the 1991 Examination." and the relevant amendment is reproduced here under:- (Annex-RI)
14. "The minimum number of marks required to pass this examination in theory shall be 405 in each paper, provided that a candidate who fails in one paper by three marks or less, shall be deemed to have passed the examination if he takes the examination in all the subjects at one time. for this purpose Research and Evaluation paper IN' will be considered separate papers. The minimum number of marks required to pass the practice teaching shall be 40 %.
15. He further argued that above mentioned regulation was against amended on 10.2.1994 in the following manner:- "The amended regulation as detailed below, shall be applicable from B. Ed admissions made in 1993 and onward".
16. Regulation VII.
17. "The minimum number of pass marks in individual paper of B.Ed Examination shall be 33 percent with the requirement of 40 percent marks in the aggregate.
18. Provided that a candidate who fails in one paper by three marks or less shall be deemed to have passed the examination if he she takes the examination in all the subjects at one time.
19. For this purpose research and Evaluation Paper-IV and Islamic Studies/Ethics and Pakistan Studies in Paper-VI will be considered separate papers. The minimum number of marks required to pass the practice in teaching shall be 405".
20. He further argued that action of the respondent is in accordance with law and there was no discriminatory treatment with the petitioner as the Roll No. 2626 appeared in the 2nd Annual Examination 1993. Therefore, his case was covered under the new Regulation dated 10.2.1994 whereas the petitioner appeared in the 2nd Annual. 1991 and 1st annual 1992 examination.
21. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
22. It is an admitted fact thai at the time when the petitioner appeared in 2nd Annual Examination, 1991 and lst Annual Examination. 1992. The regulation No. N il which was in the field prescribed a conditioned precedent to obtain 405 marks in each individual paper. But the petitioner failed to obtain 40% marks in the paper No. VI (2) Educational Research, therefore, action of the respondent is based on law. The petitioner did not accrue any vested right as the petitioner wanted to get the benefit of subsequent amendment made bv the respondent and Regulation No. VII vide Notification dated 10.2.1994 which was enforced from the B.Ed Admissions made in the year 1993 and onward. It is an admitted fact that amendment has prospective effect unless and until the competent authority has given retrospective effect. It is also a well known principle of law that no amendment may be given retrospective effect through Notification because it is the prerogative of the legislature to give retrospective effect, as is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salah-u-Din's case (PLD 1991 S.C. 541) and 1992 S.C.M.R. 1652 Army Welfare case. The action of the respondent is, the before, is not discriminatory qua the petitioner as the Roll No. 2626 did not appear in the said examination in which the petitioner appeared. I am fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.A. Sherwani case (1991 S.C.M.R. 104l) and the relevant observation is as follows:-
26. From the above cited cases the follow ing principles of law' are deducible:-
(i) That equal protection of law does not envisage that every citizen is to be treated in all circumstances alike, but it contemplates that persons similarly situated or similarly placed are to be treated alike;
(ii) that reasonable classification is permissible but it must be founded on reasonable distinction or reasonable bases;
(iii) that different laws can validly be enacted for different sexes, persons in different age groups, persons having different financial standings, and persons accused of heinous crimes;
(iv) that no standard of universal application to test reasonableness of a classification can be laid down as what may be reasonable classification in a particular set of circumstances, may be unreasonable in the other set of circumstances;
(v) that a law applying to one person or one class of persons may be constitutionally valid if there is sufficient basis or reason for it, but a classification which is arbitrary and is not founded on any rational basis is no classification as to warrant its exclusion from the mischief of Article 25;
(vi) that equal protection of law means that all persons equally placed be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed;
(vii) that in order to make a classification reasonable, it should be based:-
(a) on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those who have been left out;
(b) that the differentia must have rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by such classification.
23. The Writ Petition is not maintainable on the ground that no role of the University have been violated. The reliance can be placed R.V. Dunseath (1950) 2-AER 741. Thome v. University of London (1966 2 AER 338), Board of Intermediate v. Massadaq Naeem (PLD 1973 Lah. 600 The contention of the leamed counsel for the petitioner that the regulation was not framed by competent authority has no force. I am fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Munaza Habib's case and others v. Vice Chancellor (1996 S.C.M.R. 1790). 1995 CLC 1222 Muhammad Mansha and no others v. University of the Punjab. It is also well known principle of law that existence of rules and law would have paramount consideration. I am fortified by the case of Sadaqat Javed (1995 CLC 1155). It is also an admitted fact that conduct of the examination to the University is controlled by rules and regulations and the respondent acted with those rales and regulations, as such I find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am supported by the case of Muhammad Sahib Ullah Qazi's case 1995 CLC 1614. It is an admitted fact that Regulation VII provided a condition precedent to obtain 335? Marks in each individual paper till 13.8.1990. It was amended and raised minimum pass marks to 40% in each individual paper. Subsequently this was also amended and substituted original condition to obtain 33% marks in each individual paper vide Notification dated 10.2.1994. It was enforced from the B.Ed Admissions made in 1993 and onward.
24. Therefore, this interim period from 1991 examination till 1993 examination the condition precedent was prescribed to obtain 40% marks instead of 33% marks which was condition precedent before this and onward but this was again substituted. This brings the case of the petitioner in the area of real hardship. Since the respondent' has parental jurisdiction as is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court PLJ 1981 S.C. 577.
25. Let a copy of the Writ Petition be sent to respondent to consider the case of the petitioner under hardship rule to save the career of the petitioner in the interest of justice and fair play.
26. With this observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of.