' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---The appellants Muhammad Qayyum Tahir and three others have brought the instant Intra-Court Appeal against the judgment dated 25-11-2002 recorded by the learned Single Judge in Chamber (Muhammad Khalid Alvi) in Writ Petition No,1018 of 2001 dismissing the same.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the same are that the appellants Muhammad Qayyum Tahir, Usman Arif, Tauseer Haider (appellants Nos.1 to 3) were the students of L.L.B. Three years course in the University Gillani Law College, Multan while Waseem Shahzad Rasool (appellant No,4) in Multan Law College, Multan. They all appeared in Part No,1 First Annual Examination, 1999 held in February, 2000 through their respective colleges. Muhammad Qayyum Tahir, Usman Arif and Tauseer Haider were provisionally admitted in L.L.B., Part II Class in the University Gillani La w College. They attended the classes/lectures there. The result of Part I, 1st Annual Examination, 1999 was declared on 7-7-2000. They all failed in the same as a whole. Their names, thus were dropped from the roll of University Gillani Law College through Notification No,ULCD422/Law, dated 1-9-2000.
3. Muhammad Qayyum Tahir, Usman Arif and Tauseer Haider submitted their admission forms for taking Part I and 2nd Annual Examination, 1999 to be held in August-September, 2000 from the University Gillani Law College as late college students while Waseem Shahzad Rasool submitted such form from Muhammadan Law College, Multan as similar late student. The result of 2nd Annual Examination, 1999 was declared on 19-12-2000. They all were declared successful in the same.
Muhammad Qayyum Tahir, Usman Arif and Tauseer Haider migrated from the University Gillani Law College to Muhammadan Law College on 27-1-2001 while Waseem Shahzad Rasool there on 8-1- 2001.
4. They all submitted admission forms for appearance in Part II, 1st Annual Examination, 2000 from Muhammadan Law College. The University through its letter dated 31-1-2001 addressed to the Principal, Muhammadan Law College objected to their such candidature on the ground of ineligibility to appear in the said examination for having not completed one academic year between passing of L.L.B., Part I and Part II, 1st Annual Examination, 2000.
5. They feeling themselves aggrieved of the refusal of the University to allow them to appear in Part II, 1st Annual Examination, 2000 to be held in February-March, 2001 had brought Writ Petition No,I018 of 2001 before this Court contending therein that Part I, 2nd Annual Examination was an integral part of 1st Annual Examination, 1999 and so they had completed one academic year before their intended appearance in Part II, First Annual Examination, 2000 and therefore, the act of University refusing them to appear in the said examination is illegal and uncalled for in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. The said learned Single Judge in Chamber did not agree to their such submission and consequently dismissed the writ petition mentioned above observing that as they had failed in First Annual Examination, 1999, so they had not completed one academic year as required by the Regulation 5 of the University.
7. They feeling aggrieved of his judgment dismissing their writ petition had brought the same under attack by way of the instant appeal.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties i.e, the appellants and respondents Nos.1 and 2 and the Chairman of Muhammadan Law College, Multan on behalf of the respondent No,4.
9. It has been contended on their (appellants) behalf that the Part I, 2nd Annual Examination, 1999, was integral part of the 1st Annual Examination of that year and as they had passed the latter one (2nd Annual Examination, 1999), hence it would be deemed that they had completed their one academic year before entry/appearance in Part II, 1st Annual Examination, 2000 and so the refusal of the University to them appears in Part II, 1st Annual Examination, 2000 was against the relevant rules and not called for in the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. As against the same, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 2 has supported the impugned judgment recorded by the learned Single Judge in Chamber contending that as they had failed as a whole in 1st Annual Examination, 1999 and so as per relevant Rule IV in the matter their names were dropped from the roll of the concerned college automatically and in such situation the University has not at all acted against any rule or improperly in refusing them entry/appearance in Part II, 1st Annual Examination, 2000 to be held in February-March, 2001.
11. The Chairman, Muhammadan Law College has submitted that the appellants had sought for migration to their college and the same was allowed to them and they had been attending the classes/lectures there and on the refusal of the University to allow them to appear in the 2nd Annual Examination, 2000, it revealed that they had not completed their one academic year.
12. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the parties with the help of available record.
13. The grievance of the appellants arose on the refusal of the Bahauddin Zakaria University to them of entry/ appearance in L.L.B., 2nd Part, 1st Annual Examination, 2000 to be held in the February/March, 2001. The said University had declared them ineligible for such entry/appearance on the ground that they had not completed their one academic year between the passing of the L.L.B., Part 1, 2nd Annual Examination, 1999 and taking Part 2nd, 1st Annual Examination, 2000.
14. The controversy raised through the writ petition as well as the instant appeal is the same that the Part I, 2nd Annual Examination, 1999 was integral part of the 1st Annual Examination that year and so they had completed required one academic year before their intended entry in the Ilnd Part, 1st Annual Examination, 2000 to be held in February/March, 2001 and therefore, the refusal to them by the University to take the said Part II, First Annual Examination was against the rule.
15. It may be mentioned here that the learned counsel for the appellants during his submissions had laid much stress on occurring of the words the respective examinations in the relevant Rule IV in the matter.
16. According to him, the use of word "examinations" is significant and this denotes not one examination but the two examinations i.e, 1st Annual Examination and the 2nd Annual Examination and so the learned Single Judge in Chamber has not properly adverted to this aspect of the matter and this has caused them prejudice in their case.
17. We are afraid that by advancement of such contention he has completely ignored the Regulation 5 relevant to the subject, which provides as under:-- "5.(i) A candidate of any part of L.L.B. Class who appears in the examination in all the subjects and passes in four or more papers, obtaining an aggregate of 45% of the marks in these papers may be exempted from re-appearing therein at the subsequent examination. He shall, however, be required to appear and pass all the remaining papers (obtaining 40% in individual papers and 45% in aggregate) in any two of the three examinations immediately succeeding the examination in which he was granted exemption in four or more papers on payment of the same fee as for the whole examination on each occasion."
' The learned Single Judge in Chamber has kept in view the same and interpreted it in the true perspective in not agreeing with the case of the appellants. Before commenting further on this aspect of the matter we would also like to reproduce hereinbelow Rules II, III and IV, for clarify of our view:-- "(ii) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the regulations, the L.L.B., Part I students, who appear in the First Annual Examination shall be permitted to join the L.L.B., Part II Class provisionally at the time of regular admissions to the college and in case they fail to do so shall lose their right of admission and shall not be allowed to join the college after the declaration of the result of the First Annual Examination.
(iii) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the regulations, the L.L.B., Part II students, who appear in the First Annual Examination shall be permitted to join the L.L.B., Part III Class provisionally at the time of regular admission to the college and in case they fail to do so shall lose their right of admission and shall not be allowed to join the college after the declaration of the result of the First Annual Examination.
(iv) The names of the students admitted provisionally mentioned in clauses (ii) and (iii) shall stand dropped from the college rolls automatically if they fail in their respective examinations."
18. The appellants in the light of Rule II secured provisional admission in L.L.B., Part II Class.
19. Admittedly, they had failed in the Part I First Annual Examination, 1999 as a whole.
20. Now, as per the stance of B.Z. University, the embargo placed by the above quoted Regulation 5 came in their way of entry/appearance in Part II, First Annual Examination, 2000 to be held in February/March, 2001. Due to their failure in the said 1st Annual Examination of Part I their names were dropped from the college roll. The drop page of their names from the roll of the college was perfectly in accordance with the requirement of the said quoted regulation. It was not at all beyond than that or any other rule governing the matter. So the contention of their side that the Second Annual Examination, 1999 was integral part of the First Annual Examination, 1999 Part I becomes absolutely devoid of any force and of no importance. Thus the word "Examinations" at the end of the said Rule IV is of no help to their case.
21. The learned Single Judge in Chamber due to such position has held that the drop page of their names from the college roll was not at all incorrect or illegal.
22. He has also taken into consideration the term "academic year" according to the B.Z. University's Calendar in the matter. The same is as under:-- "Academic year means the total period during which instruction is required for the purpose of any examination between the commencement of one examination and the commencement of the next examination twelve months later."
23. This definition of academic year, if kept in view the same makes it abundantly clear that the period of 12 months had to run between the commencement of one examination and the next one.
The same seems to have not run out in their (appellants) case.
24. The interpretation, thus made by the learned Single Judge of this term "Academic year", was according to the spirit of the same.
25. In view of the above position they (appellants) did not deserve the relief sought for by them in the afore-mentioned writ petition.
26. In this context, it is also significant to mention here that their conduct of migrating from one college to another was apparently not with good intention on their part. It was purposeful and definitely in violation of the Certificate No, IV signed by them on the back of the admission forms of 2nd Annual Examination, 1999. So their such conduct certainly is not endorsable. So on that count too they do not deserve relief prayed for by them.
27. The learned Single Judge in Chamber appears to have rightly dismissed their writ petition.
28. We therefore, have not found any force in the contentions raised on their behalf as well as the appeal. The instant appeal therefore, is dismissed.