' Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner got admission in the Sessions 1999-2001 in BCS course consisting of 6 semesters. The condition was that at the end of 2nd semester if the candidate passed 50% subjects and obtained CPA (Cumulative Point Average) of 2.00, he was to be promoted in the 3rd semester, and in the 3rd semester the CGPA should not be less than 2.00 and in the 4th semester the candidate can repeat those courses of 2nd semester, in which he failed subject to the condition that his maximum work-load will not exceed. Petitioner Muhammad Ali appeared in the 1st semester and his GPA was 3.03 and CGPA was also the same who was promoted. However, in 2nd semester he failed in Algebra and Computer Programming but was promoted as his CGPA was 2.42. In the 3rd semester his CGPA was 2.00 and he was promoted to 4th semester. He moved an application to the competent authority for allowing him to participate in the class of Computer Programming (in which he failed in 2nd semester) which being accepted he joined the classes and also appeared in its examination besides courses of 4th semester. He obtained 42 marks out of 100 with Grade Point Average 1.2 in the course of Computer Programming.
But as he appeared in 6 papers instead of 5 in semester 4 his GPA was fallen to 1.5 and CGPA 1.99 and as he could not obtain required CGPA 2.00, the University Authorities have dropped him and not allowed him to join in the 5th semester.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per Regulation No.5 under the heading of Examination, according to clause (E) in the 4th semester a student was required to repeat those courses of the second semester in which he/she had failed, provided that his/her maximum work- load, including the courses being repeated by him/her did not exceed the normal work-load of the fourth semester. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Regulation the petitioner was not required to attend classes and take examination of more than five subjects, which is the normal work-load of 4th semester including the course, he wished to repeat being failed in 2nd semester, and as the petitioner was allowed to attend classes of six courses and take examination thereof by the competent authority ignoring clause (E), the course in which the petitioner has secured less marks should be excluded from the count, and University be directed to recount his marks in 5 courses. Further contends that while interpreting the rules, plain reading has to be given and relied upon the following judgments: ' 1998 SCM R 841 (Wafaqi Mohtasib's case); ' 1999 M LD 268 (Azad Government of State of Jammu and Kashmir's case); ' 1998 M LD 1818 (Ardeshir Cowasjee and 4 others' case); ' 1998 M LD 1580 (Maqbool Ahmad's case).
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-University has opposed this petition on the ground that the University has correctly calculated the marks of the petitioner who himself appeared in 6 subjects cannot be declared as pass candidate as he has not obtained the required CGPA. He refers to Regulation 5(E) and (G) read with Regulation 12 and contends that writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has failed to obtain the requisite CGPA and petitioner himself requested in the 4th semester for repeating the subject in which he failed in the 2nd Semester and the University has correctly calculated his CGPA by calculating his marks in 6 subjects. He relied upon the following judgments: ' 2002 M LD 1329; 2000 SCM R 1222; 2001 CLC 9; 2000 CLC 1450 and 2001 CLC 1825.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the relevant rules of examinations which are reproduced as under: ' EXAMINATIONS:
(a) At the end of the first semester , a student must obtain a minimum 1 grade point average (G.P.A.) of 2.00 to be promoted to the second semester.
(b) In case a student is able to obtain GPA of 1.75 or more, but less than 2.00, he will be promoted to the second semester on probation.
(c) At the end of the second semester, a student must obtain a minimum cumulative grade point average (C.G.P.A.) of 2.00 and must also pass at least 50% of the courses offered by him/her in order to be promoted to the third semester. If any of the preceding two conditions is not complied with by a student, he/she shall be removed from the rolls of the Department/College.
(d) In the third semester, a student will be required to repeat those courses of the first semester in which he/she had failed, provided that his/her maximum work-load, including the courses being repeated by him, will not exceed the normal work-load of the third semester.
(e) In fourth semester, a student will be required to repeat those courses of the second semester in which he/she had failed, provided that his/her maximum work-load, including the courses being repeated by him/her will not exceed the normal work-load of the fourth semester.
(f) At the end of the third semester, the CGPA of a student should not be less than 2.00, otherwise he/she shall be removed from the rolls of the Department/College.
(g) At the end of the fourth semester, the CGPA of a student who has not been required to repeat any course (s), should not be less than 2.00, otherwise he shall be removed from the rolls of the Department/ College.
' A student, who has not been required to repeat any course(s), obtains CGPA of 2;00 but less than 2.20 at the end of the fourth semester, may be allowed to repeat one or two courses of the third or fourth semester in which he had obtained the lowest grades, in order to improve the CGPA so as to obtain the minimum of 2.20, failing which he shall be removed from the rolls of the Department/College."
' Courses have been defined as under: {{TABLE}} Course Course Title 16 SEMESTER-IV BCS-401 Operating Systems Credit Hours 2 3 3 3 4 SEMESTER-I English-I Mathematics-I Physics-I Probability and Statistics Computers and Applications Islamic Studies SEMESTER-II English-II Mathematics-II Physics-II Linear Algebra BCS-201 BCS-202 BCS-203 BCS-204 BCS-205 BCS-206 Computers Programming Pakistan Studies BCSt101 BCS-102 BCS-103 BCS-104 BCS-105 BCS-106 2 17 2 3 BCS-301 BCS-302 BCS-303 BCS-304 BCS-305 SEMESTER-III Discrete Mathematics Computer Logic Design Basic Electronics Data Structures Accounting and Business Systems 3 3 4 2 17 3 4 3 3 BCS-402 Systems Analysis and Design 3 BCS-403 Design and Analysis of 3 Algorithms BCS-404 Data Communication and 3 Computer Networks BCS-405 Microprocessors and 4 Assembly Programming 16 SEMESTER-V BCS-501 Database and Information3 3 3 3 15 3 3 3 3 3 15 Retrieval BCS-502 Theory of Authomata BCS-503 Numerical Methods BCS-504 Software Engineering BCS-505 Computer Graphics SEMESTER-VI BCS-601 Object oriented Programming BCS- 602 Parallel Computing BCS-603 Comparative Study of Programming Languages BCS-604 Operations Research BCS-605 Compiler Construction {{TABLE}} From the perusal of the courses it is established that the normal work-load in each semester is 5 subjects but the petitioner was allowed to attend the class of Computer Programming in which he failed in 2nd semester besides the courses of 4th semester and according to clause (E) under the heading of examination reproduced above, the petitioner was required to repeat the course of 2nd semester in which he failed subject to the condition that the maximum work-load including the courses being repeated by him should not exceed the normal work-load of the 4th semester which consists of 5 subjects. It can safely be held that the petitioner including the subject he was repeating could only appear in 5 subjects but due to the mistake of the University he appeared in 5 subjects of 4th semester besides 6th course of Computer Programming in which he failed in 2nd semester. As the competent authority itself had given permission to the petitioner to repeat the subject and to join the class, it was the duty of the University to calculate the numbers obtained by the petitioner on the basis of 5 subjects instead of 6 subjects as has been done in the case of the petitioner by the University by misinterpreting clause (E) reproduced above.
' It is held in 1998 SCM R 841 that it is an elementary rule of construction that words which are plain and unambiguous are to be expounded in their natural and ordinary sense. It is further held in 1999 M LD 268 that the Courts of law are bound to interpret a law as it is and not as it should be. It is further held in 1998 M LD 1580 that whenever any provision of law has to be interpreted it should be interpreted in a manner that interest of justice is not defeated and the interpretation advances the cause of justice. It is further held in 1998 M LD 1818 that the words in common use are to be .Given their natural, plain, ordinary and commonly understood meaning, unless the statute requires otherwise. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the respondents is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and is distinguishable. This writ petition ig accepted in the terms that the University will -re-calculate the marks obtained by the petitioner in 5 subjects by excluding the marks of subject in which he obtained less marks and then decide that whether the petitioner can be promoted in the 5th semester or not.