' MIAN MUHAMMAD AKRAM BAITU, J.---Through this Intra-Court Appeal filed under section 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, the appellants have called in question the legality of an order dated 18-3- 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed.
2. The facts of the case in a narrow compass giving rise to this appeal are that the writ petitioner/respondent got admission in BBA Session 2000-2002 comprising of four semesters. The semester wise result of the writ petitioner/respondent showing GPA (Grade Point Average) and CGPA (Cumulative Grade Point Average) is also given by the respondent in para.1 of the writ petition; that the writ petitioner obtained 2.38 GPA in 1-semester excluding one subject i.e. Micro Economics as he opted to drop in this subject yet he earned promotion to II-semester on the basis of his CGPA being 2.38 (above 2.0). While studying in 2nd semester the writ petitioner/respondent made an application to appellant No.2 (respondent No.2 in writ petition) to repeat Micro Economics subject and was disallowed to study this subject with summer class. It is narrated in the petition that meanwhile the respondent appeared in II-semester but unfortunately could not pass two subjects viz. Computer Application in Business and Business Communication. However the respondent was promoted to III-semester on the basis of his CGPA being 2.23. By the end of II- semester the respondent forwarded another application to the Chairman appellant to repeat Micro Economics (I-semester) Business Communication and CAP (II-semester) subjects and was not allowed to study this subject with summer class; that while studying in 3rd semester the writ petitioner was allowed to study only CAP subject and the petitioner was constrained to take the 3rd semester examination alongwith only one subject of II-semester i.e. CAB. As regards the remaining subjects of Micro Economics and Business Communication, the respondent was neither allowed to study these two subjects nor permitted to take examination thereof. It is further alleged in the writ petition that result of the 3rd semester was announced and he was dropped in 3rd semester by the respondents-Authorities. In response to his unprecedented drop out the writ petitioner took up the matter with appellant No.2 who refused to add CAB marks in his CGPA, thus showing his 3rd semester CGPA as 1.78 instead of 1.92. Thereafter the writ petitioner made a representation to the concerned authorities but without any response, then he filed a writ petition praying therein that the act of the iespondents-Authorities is liable to be declared arbitrary, illegal, mala fide, without lawful authority and of no legal effect. On the contrary the appellants contested the petition which was allowed vide order dated 18-3-2003 passed by the learned Singe Judge in Chamber, hence this I.C.A.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber is against law and facts; that the students who secure poor CGPA (Cumulative Grade Point Average) or are failing -in number of courses and are academically weak, the regulations vied out such students; that the learned Single Judge in Chamber has changed the regulations applicable to the department of Business Administration of the appellants-University which was not within his jurisdiction and has also misinterpreted para.8(f) of the regulations which amounts to amend the same, that the respondent could not obtain CGPA of 2.00 he has been removed from the roll of the department in strictly compliance of Regulation 8(f). In this respect the learned counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance on Munir Mohsin and others v. V ice-Chancellor and others 2002 M LD 1329. The learned counsel for the appellants further went on arguing that the respondent has not been offered only left out courses of his first and second semester before offering him the courses of third semester. It is lastly contended that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber amounts to upsetting the regulations applicable thereto which is not admissible in the eye of law, therefore, the instant appeal may be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber may be set aside.
4. On the contrary the learned counsel for the respondent strongly repelled the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants contending that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber does not suffer from any infirmity which is not liable to be set aside; that the respondent has been dropped in a whimsical manner instead of being promoted to the fourth semester as he has obtained CGPA 1.78 in III-semester. As such in addition to the marks of CAP will leave the deficiency of 0.08 in respondent's CGPA, therefore, the respondent stands a fair/definite chance to cover up this minor deficiency by taking the examination of remaining two subjects i.e. Micro Economic (1-semester) and Business Communication (II-semester). Therefore, the act of the appellants is contrary to the rules and regulations applicable thereto; that respondent had to appear in the aforesaid remaining subjects and the appellants counted CGPA otherwise in sheer violation of the regulation with the result that the name of the respondent was wrongly removed from the roll of the department. It is lastly contended that the appeal filed by the appellants does not lie in the eye of law, therefore, the same may be dismissed.
5. Heard both the parties. Record peruse.
6. From the perusal of the record it is evident that the respondent got admission in BBA Sessions 2000-2002 of two years program comprising four semester and each semester consists of six courses. The respondent obtained GPA 2.38 and dropped in one course i.e. Micro Economic and was promoted to second semester as per regulations. The respondent secured CGPA 2.05 on declaration of 2nd semester who by way of excluding two courses i.e. (1) Business Communication- I and (2) Computer Application in Business, did not take the examination. As per regulations he being eligible was promoted to 3rd semester, - his failure in the two aforementioned courses notwithstanding. The respondent subsequently repeated one failing course i.e. Computer Application in Business and obtained 2.00 GPA and this marks obtained by the respondent were included in the 2nd semester. After including these marks his GPA became 2.10 (CGPA 2.23). The learned counsel for the appellants during the course of his arguments had drawn. Our attention towards the fact that in 3rd semester the respondent has shown poor performance and failed in three papers out of six and his GPA in 3rd semester was 1.28 and CGPA upto 3rd semester 1.89 whereas the required CGPA is 2.00 for promotion to 4th semester. As such he could not obtain CGPA of 2.00 till 3rd semester he was then dropped from the roll of the department in terms of Regulation 8(f) of the Regulations relating to BBA program which envisages as under:-- "At the end of the 3rd semester, the CGPA of a student should not be less than 2.00 otherwise he shall be .Removed from the roll of the department."
' The respondent was not offered the courses left by him in his first semester as per regulations relating to the summer semester program. It could only be offered if a minimum of ten students were willing to take a course. The learned counsel for the appellants further argued that the respondent was promoted to 3rd semester, as he obtained required CGPA 2.00 uptill 2nd semester.
In 3rd semester he was allowed to repeat one course i.e. Computer Application in Business and only one course is to be offered to the students to repeat during the current semester keeping in view the work load of the students.
7. The sum and substance of the foregoing discussion is that the students who cannot acquire the required CGPA i.e. 2.00 are to be dropped from the roll of the department as per term of Regulation 8(f) keeping in view the standard of education by strictly adhering to the regulations for each discipline. Inasmuch as we do not agree with the finding of the learned Single Judge in Chaniber to this effect that the respondent should have been offered only left out courses of his first and second semester before offering him the course of 3rd semester whereas the option was available to the respondent that he may take one course in addition to regular six courses offered in a semester in order to repeat a failing/dropped course. We agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants to this effect that after obtaining CGPA 1.89 uptil 3rd semester and after adding marks of CBA as against CGPA 2.00 required to remain on the roll of the department this is why he was not eligible to be promoted to the 4th semester, therefore, the appellants were justified while not entertaining the representation of the respondent for promotion to the 4th semester considering the same contrary to the regulations. Therefore, we do not agree with the observation made by the learned Single Judge in Chamber to this effect that the negligence was contributory from both the sides but was on the side of the respondent. As such the aforesaid observation dealing with this aspect of the matter seems to be the result of misinterpretation of the said regulation which in our view makes the regulations applicable to the semester system of BBA ineffective and against the intention of regulations.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by the learned Singe Judge in Chamber calls for interference by this Court. Resultantly the instant I.C.A. Is accepted, the writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber is set aside. 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.