' By this single order, Writ Petition No,12814 of 2000 and Writ Petition No,932 of 2001 are hereby disposed of as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions.
2. Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioners who have been struck off from the rolls of University have challenged the order whereby their names have been struck off from the rolls of the University and have also challenged the order of Syndicate dated 26-11-2000 whereby representation of the petitioners has been dismissed. The respondents have filed report and parawise comments. With the consent of the parties, I shall treat these petitions as pacca matters and further the report and parawise, comments shall be treated as written statement on behalf of the respondents and decide the same accordingly.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioners in both the writ petitions were admitted on merit in MBA (Executive) Evening Degree Course in BZU Mulian for the Session 1999-2001. According to the prospectus, the course has been designed for the working employees and the self- employed people to improve their professional knowledge and skill in their business on self- finance basis. It is basically two years' course which is extendable up to 4-1/2 years at the option of a student. Two years' period is further divided in four semesters. In each samester there are five courses and each semester is of 4-1/2 months duration. In each semester there are three examinations (i) preliminary examination having 20% marks, (ii) mid-term examination that is for 20% marks and there in final examination of 40% marks and 20% marks are the seasonal marks.
According to the rules and regulations of the University, a student who secures less than 50% marks in a semester in any course, he is given (CGPA) cumulative Grade point Average `D', he is considered as fail. Both the petitioners of Writ Petition No, 12814 of 2000 qualified the two semesters.
However, in the 3rd semester, they could not secure CGPA up to 50% and they were dropped in the 3rd semester; result was declared and the petitioner's name was struck off from rolls of the University and the applications of the petitioners for readmission in the 3rd semester was turned down by the University, hence, the petitioners filed Constitutional Petition No, 6267 of 2000 which was disposed of by "my learned brother Mr. Ali Nawaz Chauhan, J., on 18-9-2000. At the time of disposing of the said writ petition, a direction was issued to the University to place the matter before the Syndicate and the petitioners were allowed to continue their studies provisionally subject to payment of fee and subject to the final decision of the Syndicate. In obedience to the order of this Court dated 18-9-2000 passed in Writ Petition No,6267 of 2000, the petitioners filed representation before the Syndicate. After payment of the dues, the petitioners provisionally continued their studies for the next semester during course of their study they were informed orally by the Chairman of the Department that their names have been struck off as their representation has been dismissed by the Syndicate. The petitioners filed present Constitutional petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the impugned order passed by the Syndicate, dated 26th of November, 2000, was provided to the petitioners hence through amended writ petition, they have challenged the same also.
4. As regards, the petitioners of Constitutional Petition No,932 of 2001, petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 namely Syed Fazal Abbas and Qamar Waris were dropped in the second semester as they had secured less than 50% CGPA. As regards petitioners 3 and 4 in the said writ petition, they were dropped in the 3rd semester and petitioner No, 5 Bilal Khan has been dropped in the 4th semester.
Thus, the petitioners in both the Constitutional petitions have been dropped from the roll of the department and readmission has also been refused to them, hence, these petitions. Annexure with the report and parawise comments of Writ Petition No, 12814 of 2000 are the rules governing Department of Business Administration BZ University Multan MBA (Executive) Programme. The petitioners have been knocked out on the basis of Rule 7, D, E and F, hence they have challenged the said rule.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the afore-referred rule is discriminatory and cruel enough i,e, in the rule, there is no chance for the student to improve his CGPA of second, 3rd and 4th semester. The said rule is not only cruel in nature but not in conformity with the prevalent rules of the other Universities of Pakistan. Further submits that the course of studies for MBA (Executive) evening class and MBA in the morning class is the same but the chance to improve the CGPA is not available to the students of MBA (Executive) evening class while in case, a student of B.Z University of MBA (Misc.) programme (morning) fails to get requisite CGPA in 2nd, 3rd or 4th semester and thus is dropped, then he is entitled to get readmission and repeat the semester in the evening class MBA (Executive) on self-finance basis while no such chance is available to M.B.A.
(Executive) evening class student. Further submits that the MBA morning class programme is sponsored by the University Grants Commission while MBA (Executive) Programme Students (Evening Class) is purely a self-finance programme and there is no financial contribution by the B.Z. University or University Grants Commission, hence more harsh rules cannot be made applicable to the petitioners who are not being educated at the State expense/university expense.
Further argued that the petitioners being self-employed or working employees hence they neither can devote so much time as the whole time student of MBA morning class nor they can devote so much energy, hence, the rules for both the categories ought to have been different. Further submits that though the students who join MBA Executive Programme being working employees of organizations of self-employed they can extend their duration of studies from two years to four years by their own choice and can take at least two courses in each semester, but once they take courses studies in a semester, they are to secure at least 50% CGPA, failing which they are removed from the roll of the department. It has further been argued that these punitive rules have not been notified to the students, through prospectus at the time of admission though these rules have been otherwise notified, however, these rules are applied against the students who fail to secure requisite CGPA. Hence the petitioners have been penalized without having prior notice of the impugned rules.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University, has submitted that the petitioners had given an undertaking in their earlier Writ Petition No, 6267 of 2000 that the decision of the Syndicate would be final and they shall not challenge the decision of Syndicate, hence, the present Constitutional petition is not maintainable on behalf of the petitioners of Constitutional Petition No,12814 of 2000 and Writ Petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 5 of Constitutional Petition No, 932 of 2001. Further argued that the petitioners have not pointed out violation of any existing rule of the B.Z. University in dropping out the petitioners and striking off from the University Rolls.
Further, it has been argued that under section 11-A of the B.Z. University Act, 1975, the petitioners have remedy by way of representation before the Chancellor, hence, the petitioners having alternate adequate remedy, therefore, they cannot invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Further argued that this Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction cannot strike down the rules of an educational institution as cruel or harsh. Reliance is placed upon the judgment reported in 2001 M LD 1026, Saraha Malik v. Federation of Pakistan and others; further submits that the petitioners are bound by the rules which were applicable at the time of their admission; in this respect reliance is placed upon 1994 SCM R 532, Akhtar Ali Javed v. Principal, Quaid-i-Azam Medical College. Further, the learned counsel relied in this respect of 2000 SCM R 1222 Ali Yousaf and another v. Chairman of Academic Principal Dow Medical College. Further submits that the students who seek admission in the morning class MBA, they are governed by their own rules while the petitioners who have sought admission in MBA (Executive) evening classes, they are governed by their own rules applicable to them. Further argued that there is a reasonable classification between morning class and evening class which is permissible within the "Article 25 of the Constitution". Further in the case of the petitioners, the rules already provide extension of period of studies from two years to four years and students can take at least two courses in a semester while no such option is open to MBA morning class students at all; in the morning class MBA, the student only gets one chance to get requisite standard and he cannot extend his period of studies or reduce his number of courses further submits that the rules have been duly notified and all the laws cannot be published in the prospectus, hence, non-publication of the said rules in the prospectus would make no difference in law.
7. In exercise of right of rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners had gone to the Syndicate under the orders of this Court passed on 18-9-2000, hence the Syndicate was obliged to provide opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. The order passed by the Syndicate dated 26-11-2000 is illegal, being in violation of principles of audi alteram partem and in this behalf reliance is placed upon the judgment reported as PLD 1964 SC 410; further argued that despite having an alternate remedy under section 11-A of the B.Z. University Act, 1975, the petitioners can invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court because availability of alternate remedy does not take away the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. In this behalf, reliance is placed upon the judgment reported in PLD 1972 SC 279.
' Heard. Record perused. The preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioners are estopped to file the present Constitutional petition as they had given the undertaking in the earlier Constitutional petition that the decision of the Syndicate would be final is without any substance. It is well-established law that there is no estoppel against law, therefore, the petitioners cannot be estopped to file the present Constitutional petition. In the circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to send the petitioners back to avail of remedy under section 11-A of the B.Z. University Act before the Chancellor.
' As regards the merits, the learned counsel for petitioners has mainly challenged the Regulation 7 D, E and F of "good standing" as harsh and cruel. Suffice it to say that in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction, this Court has no jurisdiction to strike down any validly made rule, regulation or instructions or law as harsh or cruel. As regards the contentions of petitioners that the rules applicable to them are discriminatory i,e, the petitioners have been students of MBA (Executive) Evening Degree Course and have been dropped from the roll of the University and they do not get any benefit of the semesters which they have already cleared while the MBA (morning) student gets the benefit/credit of the semesters which he has already qualified and if a student of MBA (morning session) is dropped in 3rd or 2nd semester, he can seek re-adimission in MBA (Executive) Evening on self-finance basis in the semester in which he was dropped. In this respect, the admitted position is that the petitioners were dropped in 2nd and 3rd semester of the year 2000 while there was no such discriminatory rule at that time. The rules referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners have been prospectively made applicable by the amendment introduced on 13th of June, 2001, hence, at the time when the petitioners' names were struck off, these rules were not discriminatory to that extent. Reference is made to the Notification dated 13- 6-2001.
' As regards the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the rules applicable to the petitioners do not provide a chance to improve their position and they are dropped for all times to come from pursuing the studies in the said field and there is no such rules anywhere in the country throughout Pakistan in any course of studies, the argument is factually incorrect. The Prospectus of Institute of Business Administration Karachi also reflects the same position. Likewise similar rule is applicable to the MBA Studies at Punjab University, thus, these rules cannot be termed as violative of any fundamental right guaranteed in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 or void to any other touchstone.
' The petitioners who have been the students of MBA (Executive) Evening Class by their own choice had opted to take burden of five courses pre-semester, otherwise, according to the rules, they had already been given an option to extend their period of studies from two years to four years and the student may take only two courses in a semester instead of five courses due to paucity of time being working employees or self-employed persons while no such relaxation is given to the students of MBA Morning Session. Hence there is reasonable classification among the students of MBA Morning Sessions and Evening Sessions and they have separate rules.
Further, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the rules were not duly notified through Prospectus has also no substance in it; all the laws, rules, regulations cannot be notified through Prospectus. A student who seeks admission, he is supposed to know the rules, regulations applicable to his studies which have otherwise been duly notified. To maintain a particular standard of studies, rules have to be framed in such a manner that higher standard of education be maintained throughout the studies.
' In the circumstances, I find no merit in the Writ Petitions' Nos. 12814 of 2000 and 932 of 2001, therefore, both these petitions are hereby dismissed. However, the parties shall bear their own 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.