University of Peshawar through Controller of examination Vs Mst. Iqra & 03 others

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

(fudicial Department) C.R No.768-P of 2025.

University of Peshawar through Confoller of E>ramination University of Peshawar Vs. MsL Iqra & 03 otlers.

Datc ol'heiuir4; 29.07.2025

For Pelitioners Mr. Muha.rurna<l Shakil, Advocate. For respondents M/s Dau<lJan & Mian Saqib Ali, Advocates

JUDGMENT

MIEIAMMAD NAEEN{ ANWAR. I.- Inrpug'ned tlrrouglr the instant petition filed un<ler section l15 of "the Civil Procedure Code l!)08" is the judgment and rlccree datetl 21.03.2025 passed by the Ieamed Arklitirxral District Jurlge-Vl, Peshawar, whereby the petitioners' appeal agrinst the jtrdgrnent iur<l decree dated 27.02.2025 of the learnerl Civil Judse-XX Peshau,ar, suurm:uily decreeing the suit of Ilesponclents No.1 to 3, was rlisnrisse<l.

2.F;tcts ol' the case are that Respondents No. 1 to 3 were enrollerl as stutlents in the BS (4-Years) Conrnrerce Progrant at Shaheed Alanrzell Goventnteut Girls Commerce College, alliliated with the University of'Peshawar', for tlte FaIl Semester of 2022. [l1x>n appealing in the first sen)ester exarninations, Respontlents No.l, 2, and 3 secured GPAs of 1.46, 1.19, iurd 1.2!t respectively. In accoxlance with llegulatkrn l2 (iv) o{'the Iiniversity of Peshawar's Senrester llegulirtions filr the llS 4-Ye:u Progranr in ;rlliliated colleges, 2010, my strr<letrt failinS;

to se(:ure a tnitrinutnt GPA of L5 in the filst semester slnll itutonratit'all1' lrc tlroplrc<l li-ont the collegt roll and slrall not be re-adnrittetl by the siurte college, the

respondents were accodingly dropped. They challer4;erl tlils action tlrrough Civil Suit No.B45/1, seeking a decl;uation that they were entitled to cr>ntinue regular classes an<l sit tbr the second senlester exanrinations. 'Ihe suit was entertained, and arl-interinr relief was gr:utte<l on 15.12.2028 for 14 days, sullject to notice. Pursua"nt to the said reliel, the resp<>nrlents were allowed to attend classes and appear in the second senrester, wherein they secured CGPAs of 2.08, 1.89, and 1.99 respectively. However, Suit No.345/l was later disnrissed as withdrawn uncon<litionally on 2!t.06.2024. Subsequently, the resp<rnrlents institute<l civil suit No.l84/l of 2024, seeking a declaration that they werr entitled to appear in the third semester exanrinatit>n, and that the University and the College harl no authority to drop thenr or deny their eligibility. 'flris suit was contested by the rlefbndants on legal and factual grounds. Nevertheless, the leamerl Civil .)udge, tluough sunlrnary judgnrent dated 27.02.2025 under Order XV-A CPC, decreed the suit in respondents' fhvour. 'lhe University's ap1rcal against this judgnrent was <lisnrisscrl by the learnerl Additional Districtjudge-Vl, Peshawar.

3.I ltave heard the submission of the leamed counsel lbr petitioners and tcspondettts arxl perused the rect>rtl.

4.It is an admiued lact that the respondents were studenls at the College affrliated with the flniversity of Peslnu,iu'. Two sets r>f senrester regulations are in filce: one tbr the University itself zurd another specific to irfliliated colleges under the llS 4-Year Pr-ogram. [t is un<lispute<l that reslxrn<lents, having failed to

aclileve the nrininrum required GPA in the first semester, sto<xl rlisqualifie<l unrler Regulation l2(iv) of Regulation, 2010 and were rightly clroppecl fiom the roll. The continuation of their studies during the second ancl third senlesters was made possible solely clue to the ad-interim relief grzrnted in Civil Suit No.345/1, which was always subject to the final outcome of the suit. However, lbr reasons best lurown to the petitioners, they chose not to pursue the suit on nre rits iurd instead requested its unconditional wrtlxlrawzrl. Since ;ur interinr or(ler merge with the final orcler and if the final order is against the petitioner, it is deemed that the petitioner had no fhvourable order in his lavour at any time. Notably, alter the withdrawal of the first suit, the respondents initiated a seconcl suit (No.1B4/1 ol 2024) on 23.07.2025, seeking substantially the same relief. Pursuant to interim directions, they appeared in the third and lburth semester exiutfnations, and the suit w:rs rlecreetl tlrrough a sumntary.iudgnrent, despite the IIniversity's obiections. Regulation 12(iv) of Regulation, 2010 clearly stipulates that students who lail to secure 1.5 GPA in the first semester or 1.70 CGPA in any subsequent senlester shall stand automatically dropped and shall not be re-adnlimed by the same college. This regulation is decisive lbr adjurlication of the matter. When confionted, learned counsel fbr the respondents conceded that the matter required tleterminatirln tln merits in the original suit' 'l'heir c:ontiuue<I enrolment in senlesters 2 to 4 was, therefore, in violaticxr of the said regulation' The key question befbre the coutls was whether the res nt>ndents . havin s lailecl to attain the n nlm um GPA

in the first senreste r could s clainr nonetheles entitlenrent to conhnuer I enrolmen t!'} The responclents' promotion to the second semester was contingent upon attaining a mininrum GpA of 2.00 in the first senlester, a prerequisite applicable to all students. Failure to n)eet this requirement resulted, under the University's regulations governing its alliliatetl colleges, in tlte student's renroval fionr the rolls of both the college and the [lniversity. Both the learne<l trial and appellate courts failed to address this core issue in its tme legal context. It is an established principle of law that when the law requires a thing to be clone in a particular manner t]ren that thing be done iIr that m:uuter and not otherwise. Ref'erence may be nnde to the principle enunciated in cases tided "Qamar Iaved vs. Gul lahan" €005 MLD 1329). "Sved Bashir Hussain vs. Abdul Waheed" €013

MLD 167$. "SNGPL VS. OGRA" (PLD 2013

Iahore 289), "Cantonment Board Clifton vs. Sultan Ahmad Siddique" €016 CLIC 919). "Muhamrrud Alcam.Iavid rn. Bashir Ahmad Soak" (2016 CIrC 1751). "flassan Bakt$h vs. Sultan" €016 MLD LL57l.

"Aimir Shah- vs. the Insner*rrr General Frontier Coms Khvber Pakhtunkhrra and another' (2020 scMR 21291. "Muharrunad llanif Abbasi v.

knran Khan Niazi" (PLD 2018 SC 189)

Shahide

Bibi v. Flabib Bank Limited" (PLD 2016 SC 995) and Human Rishts Cases Nos.4668 of 2006 and others (PID 2O1O SC 75 9) u

5.'l'he plaintifl's/responclents sougltt <leclaration aflinning their entitlenrent t() c<xrtinue tlteir studies, which is undoubtedly a fund:unental riglrt under Article 25-A of tlie Constitution of the Iskmic

Republic of Pakistan, 197i1, but subject ro the law. They uere required to achieve the requisite GPA in the lirst senrester; however, they failed to do so, and accorrling to the regulations, those who do not meet the nrininrunr tlueshold are renroved liont the roll. In the case of MIII{AMMAD ILYAS Versus BAI{AUDDIN ZAKARIYA t]NTVERSITY MIIIITAN and another €005 SCMR 961) it was obserued by the Hon'ble Suprenre Court that:

"We have heard the learrred counsel and have also gone tluough the relevzurt regulation. At the outset it rnay be noted that as l'ar as the rules/regulations fiarned by the lJniversity Authorities lbr dre puryose ol' conductive/regularizinp; examination etc. of I inivcrsity arc conccnled these :rre required to be interpreted by the University Authorities itself and Courts shoukl irvoid to interJrret the same unless a case of grave injustice is rxrt made out otherwise it would become dilficult lbr Universiry adrninistration to run iu internal allairs relating to exarnination, etc, Further, a perusal of Regulation 8(B arxl its other parts clearly dernonstrate that the petitioncr was required to obtain (CGPA) independently in each selrlester lbr the I)urpose of prornotion to the next seurester. As it lns bccn pointed out ltereinabove that the petitioner ditl not obtain requisite (CGPA) itr the 3rd semester i.e. 2.00 (CGPA) therefbre. IJniversity Authorities in cxcrcise of power conf-erred upon tltem under Rcgulation 8(F) rightly rernovcd his name from the roll. The learned ICA Bench alter exarnining the case o[ petitioner in depth reachcd to the conclusion that he w:rs required to obtain 2.00 CGPA in the Srd senle ster, therelbre, his name was riglrtly removed liorri the roll ol' University as irnpugned judgment is just :urd lcgal, therclbrc, no interl'erencc is called fbr by this Court in exercisc ol' jurisdictiotr under Article

185(iJ) ol' thc Constitution ol' Isliunic Republic of P:rhist;ur."

'l'o obtain the relief souglrt, the plaintifl's were un(ler an obligation to establish not only the existence of' their riglrt but also its denial by the petitioners. H<>wever, the regulations goveming the affiliated colleges under the control of the petitioners' university are clear, sell-explanatory, :urd unambiguous. These regulations adntit of only one interpretation, that prornotion to the secrxrrl senrester is conditional upon securing a nlinimunl ()PA of' 2.0. As the plaintifl.s failed to meet this acarlenric tlrreshold, no vested riglrt accrued in their fhvour. Reliiu'rce in this regud may be placed on tlte judg:nents rendered in the cases of Mulnmmad Mustarsar Maqbool v. Balnuddin Talraiya University *uough Vice Chancellor and others (2009 MLD l4dll; Muhanunad Istrfaq Ahmad Sial v. Balnuddin TAratiyaUniversity, Multan through Vice Chancellor and others (2009 YLR 1841); and Enc. Muhannnad trps Khanak v. University of ErUineering and Tecturology, Peshawar through Vice Chancellor and others (2016 YLR 106).

O. 'fhe concept of sumnmy <lisposal of suits within the fianrework of civil litigation is encapsulated in Orrler XV-A of the Corle of Civil Procedure, 1908. This provision authorizes the Court to dispose of a suit at the first hearing, llroviderl the parties are not in dispute over imy material questi<xt of law or fact, or if the rlet'ence is lbund to be li'iv<llous, vexatious, or illusory. 'l-he issue belbre this Court is whetlter the suit of the plaintifli/respondents ciut lle disposed of under the provisions <tf Ortler XV-A, or whether the case necessitates tlte recording of evidence' Since the

petrtioncrs lnve unequivocally contested the allegations in the plaint, which nuurif'ests that the parties are at issue, thereby exclutling the applicability of Order XV, Rule 1, or Or<ler XV-A, Rule l, CpC. Furthermore, the plaintifl's' continuerl eligibiliry to sit firr exarninations and attenrl classes in subsequent senresters was contingent upon the outcome of Suit No. Il45/1, wlilch was not rleci<led in their fhvour. Additionally, the plaintiflb have neither clnllenged the relevant regulations nor demtxrstrated any legal basis entitling thenr to continue their studies, particularly considering their lailure to achieve the requisite GPA in their lirst semester. Furthernxrre, the plaintifl's have failed to provide any legal or f'actual basis to support theil claim for the determination of their suit within the fianreworh of Section 42 of the Specilic Relief Act, Itl77. 1'he law nran<lates tlnt where the lis rloes not denronstrate a violati<ln ot'law, rules, or regulations, and lails to disclose a cause of action, it is the dutv of the coufts to prevent any f'urther progress in tlte n)atter. Ref'erence nray be made to the case of Misree Khan versus AMul Ghafoor PLD 2025 SC 24), Ahmed Ali Talpur venus Sub Resistrar, Latifabad Hvderabad (PLD 2025 SC 325). lrarned counsel lbr plaintillis-respondents adnritted the facts that the college of the plaintifl's was being regulatetl by the Petitioners' University tlu'ough the Regulations lbr alliliated colleges.

Z. Arlverting to tlte last subnission of learned counscl firr respon<lents that sitrce tlte respondents have been promoted to the lourtll semester and, now, they :ue at the verge of cotnpletion of tlteir studies suflice is to say that the lact that a wrong was previously

I

pennitted to continue does not, in any nlanner, justily its perlrctuation. Past inaction, oversiglrt, or even deliberate tolerance cantrot lrc invoked as a law{ul basis fbr nraintaining an illegality. In addition, one wrong can never justify another. 'l'he conrmission of a wrungful act by one pafiy rkres not confbr upon the other the ntoral or legal right to respond in kinrl. .|ustice :ur<l the rule of Iaw require that each act is to be assesserl on its own nrerits and consequences, without allowing rekrliation or counter-misconduct to obscure the huth ()r excuse unlaw,ful behavior. To condone one wrong nrerely because it was provoked or preceded by iurother woul<l undermine societal orcler, encourage vigilantisnt, and erode the very principles of lairness ullon which justice rests. Furthemrore, the responrlents' piulicipation in the second iurd third selnesters was solely pursuant to an interim order of the Court, which ultimately stood witlxlrawn upon dismissal of the suit; hence, they cannot derive any benelit fi<xn such interinr rututgen)ent. No doubt there are concurrent lindings in favour of responrlents but suclt lindings are not inrnrune lionr interf'erence by this Courl where they are basecl on misreading or non- rearling ol'the recrrrrl, or are perverse, unjustilierl, or contliu'y to law, as hekl by the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in the cases titled oNazim Ud Din and others v. Sh. Zia ul Qamar and others" €016 SCMR %) and "Noor Muhamrnad and others v. I\[st Azrut+-Bibf e012 SCMR 1373) that enoneous conculrent findings based on nrisreading :utrl non-re:rling of evidence are no l<xrger sacrosanct.

8.Ilase<l on the fbregoing, it is hekl that both the leanre<l c()ufis below erre<l in law an<l crxrnritterl

irregularities in renrlerinl4 their tlecisions, which are contrarv to establishe<l legal principles anrl, therefbtr, unsustainable. Consequently, this civil revision is allowed, the impugned judgments and decrees are hereby set aside, and the suit of the respondents is rlisnrissed. No order as to costs r Announced on 29.07.2025.

Released on 12.08.2025.

JUDGE

(SB)Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Naeem Anwar. esif lan Sr. S. S