Ms. Anber Javed VS Baharia Univeristy through its Pro Chancellor & others

Form No.HCJD/ C-l21

ORDER SHEET

IS LAMABAD HI GH COURT

ISLAMABAD

W.P NO.74O of 2Ol2

MS. AITBER JAVED

Versus

BAHRIA UNIVERSITY ETC.

Sr.No. of Date of order f Order with signature of J udge, and that of Parties or order/ proceeding counsel, where necessary 29..O4.2oL3 Mr. Muhammad Aslam Khaki, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Shafiq-ur-Rehman Dab, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this court, by way of filing instant writ petition, with the following prayer: "In the circumstances, it is humblg praged that:

1.The act of appltcation of so'called Rules of 2OOg to the co,se of the Petitioner retrospectlaelg and. utithout tauful authoritg be declared agalnst the lantt, justlce qnd hence aoid and hence of no legal effect.

2.the respondents be directed to declare the petitloner as the aalid and' lawful wlnner ot gold medal ln B.S telecommunlcation prog"dm (2006'2010) betng the htghest scorer of CGPA 3.79 and thus be autarded the @ld Medal for her bortch in the next annuc;l conaocation of the respondent Uniaersitg.

3.The alleged. Acad,emfc Rules of 2OO9 (as amended) mag be declared aoid and lnaalid belng not framed in accordance wtth the Bahria Uniaersitg Ordinance 2OOO''

2.The brief facts leading to file the instant writ petition are that petitioner joined the respondent University in 2006 batch to earn a

B.S Degree in Telecommunication, all the four years she work extremely hard and earned highest CGPA 3.79 amongst all her batch mates. As per Academic Rules in the form of "Prospectus 2006" and "students Handbook" provided by the University to all the students of her batch, it was provided that students achieving high academic standards are awarded, 'Honors' upon completion of their degree requirements and medals and merit certificates are awarded to these students at the Convocation Ceremony of the University. Petitioner having highest CGPA i.e 3.79 was expecting award of a 'Gold Medal' on the eve of Convocation Ceremony held on 26th of December 2Ol1 but to her utter disappointment and surprise, the Gold Medal was awarded to another batch mate of her, namely Mr. Saad-ul- Hassan, with CGPA 3.71 much lower than the petitioner's. The said violation was agitated through application addressed to the Head of the Department of Electrical Engineering on 9tr Dec. 2}ll but her request was turned down with the remarks as under:- oCase utas discussed uith Director IC and the request has been refused on the grounds that Academic Council decided in 2009 the ctnnged ntles for the au.tard of Gold Medals"

3.Petitioner was verbally communicated by H.O.D that according to said amended Academic Rules 2OO9, a student who has re-

W.P NO.740 of 2Ol2

studies is scheduled his/her subjects during Medal and any not entitled for the award of God other Honor.

that

4.Learned counsel for petitioner argued it is the settled law that no law can be applied retrospectively as in the case of petitioner the when University Rules of 2O06 were applicable in the petitioner rescheduled her one subject 2006-2007, therefore, rules of 2OO9 without prejudice their validity cannot be applied retrospectively. That, the so called rules of public were neither framed as per law nor made hence are void ab initio' It is contended that "Cum Laude" is also one of the Honours of the Universitywhichwasawardedtothepetitioner despite her re-scheduling of one subject in 2006 but denied the Gold Medal for the reason best known to respondent University' It is lastly contended that matter of 'Gold Medaf is the basis of career of the petitioner for higher education, foreign scholarship and employment' therefore, its denial to the petitioner will seriouslY Prejudice her'

5.Conversely, Respondent University filed its written statement, whereas impleaded respondent No.4 through amended memo not appeared despite substituted service through proclamation, therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17 'O4'2013'

W.P NO.74O of 2Ol2

the

6.It is the stance of Respondent

University that instant writ petition is not petitioner is not an maintainable as the of "aggrieved person" in the ambit of Article 199 Republic of Pakistan the Constitution of Islamic has been infringed' as none of her legal right withdrawal of one Petitioner herself admitted her degree and took subject in Ist' Semester of onesummersemester,hencenotmeetthe It is contended criteria for award of Gold Medal' Laude" and that the Rules of award of "Cum as there are different Gold Medal are not same and "Gold Criteria for award of "Cum Laude" Medal".

I have heard the learned counsel for the

parties and Perused the record' her

7.Admittedly, petitioner completed degree in the yeer. 2010; the students become at the time of eligible for Honours and Medals degrees' It is the completion of their respective stance of petitioner herself that it was provided that "students in the Prospectus and handbook are achieving high academic standards of their awarded, 'Honors' upon completion and merit degree requirements and medals students at the certificates are award'ed to these Convocation Ceremony of the University'" practice in the Therefore, this was a prevailing *are awarded'was used university as the word

W.P NO.74O of.2OL2 5

in the Prospectus and hand book and not the word *will be awardedt'. Moreover, it is provided at the first page of Students Handbook that:- "T?rc policies and procedures contained in this book are subject to change from time to time as deemed necessary and appropiate bg the lJniuersitg in order to fulfill ifs missfon and objectiues. Ang such changes might be implemented uithout pior notice."

8.There is no doubt that CGPA of petitioner (3.791 was highest in comparison to CGPA (3.71) achieved by respondent No.4, but petitioner achieved this score in 02 attempts whereas respondent No.4 achieved it in one go.

This aspect itself created a reasonable distinction between petitioner and respondent No.4, therefore, decision of the University cannot be termed as arbitrary, perverse and unreasonable.

g. It will not be out of place to mention here that making rules and regulations to run the affairs of University and interpretation of the same is the prerogative of the University Authorities, and the courts normally avoid interference in such like matters, unless a case of grave injustice is pointed out' Although, award of GoId Medal to a student is a sign of excellence and inspiration yet the authorities

have to examine the case of each student in the perspective of university rules and regulations made from time to time.

In this view of the matter instant writ petition is dismissed.

JUDGE

Approved for Reporting.

"Waqar

Slnt

Uploaded By : Engr. Umer Rasheed Dar