2010 M L D 1626
2010 M L D 1626
[Lahore]
Before Umar Ata Bandial and Muhammad Khalid Mehmood Khan, JJ
FAIQA ALI---Petitioner
Versus
VICE-CHANCELLOR and another---Respondents
I.C.A. No. 818 of 2009, decided on 8th March, 2010.
(a) Government College University, Lahore Ordinance (XLVIII of 2002)---
----S. 13(3)---Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3---Appellant had challenged the decision of single Bench of High Court on the ground that Examination Regulations, 2007 laying down the threshold of minimum "Cumulative Grade Point Average" were enforced by the Syndicate of the University on 16-2-2008 whereas the examination of the first semester was completed on 2-2-2008, the said regulations were enforced retrospectively on the appellant's first semester to adversely affect his vested right under the erstwhile regulations to enter the subsequent semesters as regular rather than probation students---Contention raised by University was that Examination Regulations, 2007 were competently framed and those were accepted by the appellant and no vested right of students could exist in relation to examination standards---Plea of the University that appellant had waived his objections to the new examination regulations was insignificant because appellant had no choice in the matter as the next semester was the last semester being offered for his course---University should make arrangements to sit for his examinations in the subjects in which he had been adjudged deficient according to University Standards and the same would entail the provision of staggered examinations of each probation semester and not collective examinations of all probation subjects in the 3 semesters however, if the appellant passed examinations for any semester that would equip him with a qualification of the passed semester in order to claim advance standing in a similar or the same course at another University---If however, the appellant failed in one or more semesters then he had no ground to complain as he lacked the learning and knowledge for passing that semester---University should administer examinations to the appellant under the higher standards of the Examination Rules, 2007---Intra-court appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Secretary Ministry of Commerce and others v. Salahuddin and others PLD 1991 SC 546 ref.
(b) Government College University, Lahore Ordinance (XLVIII of 2002)---
----S. 13(3)---Academic standards---Failure of University to provide reasonable facilitation and support---Gravity of University's failure to discharge its responsibility for offering its students reasonable facilitation and support in demonstrating their capabilities was far greater and consequential than its claimed waiver of rights by the students---Students had no case for relaxation of academic standards by the University because enforcement of the new Examination Regulations, 2007 were lawful and competent under the Government College, Lahore University Ordinance, 2002 and also because the appellants were barred by laches and acquiescence as they did not claim the relief when first put under probation under the new Examination Regulations, 2007 in the semester-II of their master degree courses.
(c) Educational institution---
----University was bound by promissory estoppel to provide a fair and reasonable course format and education facilities that were required by a part time student of ordinary ability for passing the examination.
Salman Mansoor for Appellant.
Ali Masood Hayat for Respondent along with Deputy Controller Examination G.C. University, Lahore.
ORDER
These connected appeals are filed against the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 23-7-2009. The appellants are all students at the respondent University in the evening classes of 2007-2009 Session of M.Sc. courses in Banking and Finance or in Entrepreneurship and SME. Their semester wise Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) shows that the appellants are all borderline students with mostly an average of "C+" grade. The courses in which the appellants took admission in the University for the 2007-2009 Session were discontinued by the University in the year, 2008. At the end of Semester-I, the appellants secured a CGPA of less than 2-50.
Under the Examination Regulations of 2007 they were put on probation in Semester-II and asked to resit the subjects in which they got less than B-grade. This was notified by the Controller of Examinations on 7-11-2008. The appellants went through Semester-4 1 on probation but again attained a deficient CGPA. Under the Examination Regulations 2007 they should have been asked to seek readmission; but as the M.Sc. program in the appellants' discipline was discontinued by the University and fresh courses were not available for the first two semesters, the appellants were sent into Semester-III, again on probation but with the condition that they had to also take the resit examination for the first two semesters. The appellants again secured deficient CGPA in semester-III but they were nevertheless sent through Semester-IV on probation where they were asked to also take the resit examination of the first three semesters. Affidavits were taken from the appellants to the effect that this would be the last chance to be provided to them or to be claimed by them.
3. The appellants were unsuccessful to achieve the requisite grade in the rest examinations and also their current semesters. Now after three years and having paid the full fee for the four semesters, they still do not have the degrees that they aspire for. Accordingly, in the writ petition decided by the learned Single Judge, they challenged the treatment meted to them by the University. The ground of challenge is that the new Examination Regulations, 2007 laying down the threshold of minimum CGPA were enforced by the Syndicate of the University on 16-2-2008 whereas the examination of the first semester was completed on 2-2-2008. Hence the said regulations were enforced retrospectively on the appellants' first semester to adversely affect their vested right under the erstwhile regulations to enter the subsequent semesters as regular rather than probation students.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record material showing that the appellants were aware that they were placed on probation through the second semester onwards. Hence they were aware of the enforcement of new Examination Regulations of 2007. These regulations were necessary due to the change of course of instruction for under graduate degree from 2 years to 4 years. The new regulations were enforced by decision of the Academic Council in exercise of powers under section 13(3) of (he Government College University Ordinance, 2002 ("Ordinance"). That provision empowers the Vice Chancellor to take emergency action subject to ratification by the Syndicate. The impugned enforcement of the new regulations was ratified by the Syndicate in the present case. Accordingly the Examination Regulations 2007 are competently/lawfully framed; these were accepted by the appellants and in any event no vested right of students can exist in relation to examination standards.
5. Heard. Before us defaults are evident on the record by the both parties to the appeal. The appellants are at fault for being borderline students who acquiesced to the Examination Regulations, 2007 by accepting promotion to the next semester on probation rather than claiming semester freeze or readmission. They are working persons who joined the evening classes of the aforementioned courses at the University for the advancement of their careers. From this Court they seek the relief of relaxation of the CGPA standard in order that they may pass and secure the professional degree for which they devoted two years and paid in full. However, that possibility of being conferred the degree sought is excluded by the appellants failure to clear the huge burden of current plus several resit examinations that they must pass.
6. On the other hand, the University is in default for having admitted part time students in courses which they decided to discontinue. As a result, rather than offering the appellants an opportunity to repeat or sit out the semester to improve upon their deficient performance, the University encouraged the appellants to proceed to the next semester on probation thus imposing extra work-load for which the appellants neither had time available to prepare and handle such burden nor the capability to independently complete the task. Indeed, the work load was imposed not because the appellants had promised but that the next semester was being offered at the University for the last time. The appellants were swept to the next stage by the University till the third semester knowing well that the appellants being part-time students were incapable of handling the workload of three semesters simultaneously.
7. Accordingly, on the one hand, the appellants who are part-time evening students claim the erstwhile standard of assessment so that they pass the examinations in all subjects in the three semesters. Otherwise under the higher standards set by new Examination Regulations their performance is deficient and unless they clear the unbearable burden of accumulated resit examinations they cannot hope of ever getting their degrees. On the other hand, due to its own incapacity the University has failed to provide the educational facilities expected by and necessary for part time students like, the appellants. As a result, the appellants have been dragged through several semesters with courses for which they lack both the time and capability to prepare and succeed.
8. To compound the appellants' difficulties, learned counsel for the University informs that now even Semester-IV is no longer available at the University. This is, therefore, a case of the University being in a tearing hurry to conclude its course without providing a fair and reasonable opportunity to the appellants to absorb, comprehend or demonstrate their learning. Clearly, the respondent University should in this case have factored and provided for the needs and limitations of working, part-time students lib - the appellants. The consequence of an unmanageable workload being imposed on the appellants should have been foreseen by the University. It appears that the University was indifferent to the needs of its student and also to its own representations and responsibilities as an elite institution of excellence.
9. The plea of the University that the appellants had waived their objections to the new Examination regulations is insignificant because the appellants had no choice in the matter as the next semester was the last semester being offered for their course. Indeed the University is no longer in a position either to offer any resit examination or to carry the appellants into Semester-IV of their courses. That reflects apathy by the University for its duty to honour its words and reputation for providing facilities that are commensurate to the need's of its students like the appellants. Such an obligation is cast upon the University by its representations as an institution of excellence made at the time of offering admission to part time candidates to its courses and enrolling the appellants. In terms of law the University is bound by promissory estoppel to provide a fair and reasonable course format and educational facilities that are required by a part time student of ordinary ability for passing the examination. The fact of the appellants seeking admission at the University constitutes their reliance on such a promise by the University. Reference is made to Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Commerce and others v. Salahuddin and others (PLD 1991 SC 546).
10. In the present case, expecting part time students to resit all their past examinations in their Semester-III amounts to imposing an onerous and unreasonable burden, inter alia, for the University's inability to discharge its responsibility as a reputable institution of excellence to provide the necessary support and fair opportunity to the appellants for retaking or sitting out the semesters in which they were deficient or for availing supplementary examination so as to meet the academic standards set by the University.
11. To the mind of the Court the gravity of the University's said failure to discharge its responsibility for offering its students reasonable facilitation and support in demonstrating their capabilities is far greater and consequential than its claimed waiver of rights by the appellants. Likewise the appellants cannot have a case for relaxation of academic standards by the University because enforcement of the new Examination Regulations, 2007 is lawful and competent under the Ordinance and also because the appellants are barred by laches and acquiescence as they did not claim the present relief when they were first put under probation under the new Examination Regulations, 2007 in the Semester-II of their Master degree courses.
12. In the circumstances, therefore, it is ordered that at the option exercisable by each appellant, the respondent-University shall make arrangements far providing one opportunity to the appellants to sit for their examinations in the subjects in which they have been adjudged deficient according to University standards. This would entail the provision of staggered examinations of each probation semester and not collective examinations of all probation subjects in the 3 semesters. This order is passed in the parental jurisdiction of the Court by considering sympathetically the contribution of three years time by the appellants to their Master degree courses and the substantial expense incurred by them in this behalf.
13. If the appellants pass examinations for any semester that would equip them with a qualification of the passed semester in order to claim advance standing in a similar or the same course at another University. Otherwise, if the appellants fail in one or more semesters then they have no ground to complain as they lack the learning and knowledge for passing that semester. The respondent University shall administer examinations to the appellants under the higher standards of the Examination Rules of 2007. Disposed of.
M.U.Y./F-23L Order accordingly.
[Lahore]
Before Umar Ata Bandial and Muhammad Khalid Mehmood Khan, JJ
FAIQA ALI---Petitioner
Versus
VICE-CHANCELLOR and another---Respondents
I.C.A. No. 818 of 2009, decided on 8th March, 2010.
(a) Government College University, Lahore Ordinance (XLVIII of 2002)---
----S. 13(3)---Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3---Appellant had challenged the decision of single Bench of High Court on the ground that Examination Regulations, 2007 laying down the threshold of minimum "Cumulative Grade Point Average" were enforced by the Syndicate of the University on 16-2-2008 whereas the examination of the first semester was completed on 2-2-2008, the said regulations were enforced retrospectively on the appellant's first semester to adversely affect his vested right under the erstwhile regulations to enter the subsequent semesters as regular rather than probation students---Contention raised by University was that Examination Regulations, 2007 were competently framed and those were accepted by the appellant and no vested right of students could exist in relation to examination standards---Plea of the University that appellant had waived his objections to the new examination regulations was insignificant because appellant had no choice in the matter as the next semester was the last semester being offered for his course---University should make arrangements to sit for his examinations in the subjects in which he had been adjudged deficient according to University Standards and the same would entail the provision of staggered examinations of each probation semester and not collective examinations of all probation subjects in the 3 semesters however, if the appellant passed examinations for any semester that would equip him with a qualification of the passed semester in order to claim advance standing in a similar or the same course at another University---If however, the appellant failed in one or more semesters then he had no ground to complain as he lacked the learning and knowledge for passing that semester---University should administer examinations to the appellant under the higher standards of the Examination Rules, 2007---Intra-court appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Secretary Ministry of Commerce and others v. Salahuddin and others PLD 1991 SC 546 ref.
(b) Government College University, Lahore Ordinance (XLVIII of 2002)---
----S. 13(3)---Academic standards---Failure of University to provide reasonable facilitation and support---Gravity of University's failure to discharge its responsibility for offering its students reasonable facilitation and support in demonstrating their capabilities was far greater and consequential than its claimed waiver of rights by the students---Students had no case for relaxation of academic standards by the University because enforcement of the new Examination Regulations, 2007 were lawful and competent under the Government College, Lahore University Ordinance, 2002 and also because the appellants were barred by laches and acquiescence as they did not claim the relief when first put under probation under the new Examination Regulations, 2007 in the semester-II of their master degree courses.
(c) Educational institution---
----University was bound by promissory estoppel to provide a fair and reasonable course format and education facilities that were required by a part time student of ordinary ability for passing the examination.
Salman Mansoor for Appellant.
Ali Masood Hayat for Respondent along with Deputy Controller Examination G.C. University, Lahore.
ORDER
These connected appeals are filed against the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 23-7-2009. The appellants are all students at the respondent University in the evening classes of 2007-2009 Session of M.Sc. courses in Banking and Finance or in Entrepreneurship and SME. Their semester wise Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) shows that the appellants are all borderline students with mostly an average of "C+" grade. The courses in which the appellants took admission in the University for the 2007-2009 Session were discontinued by the University in the year, 2008. At the end of Semester-I, the appellants secured a CGPA of less than 2-50.
Under the Examination Regulations of 2007 they were put on probation in Semester-II and asked to resit the subjects in which they got less than B-grade. This was notified by the Controller of Examinations on 7-11-2008. The appellants went through Semester-4 1 on probation but again attained a deficient CGPA. Under the Examination Regulations 2007 they should have been asked to seek readmission; but as the M.Sc. program in the appellants' discipline was discontinued by the University and fresh courses were not available for the first two semesters, the appellants were sent into Semester-III, again on probation but with the condition that they had to also take the resit examination for the first two semesters. The appellants again secured deficient CGPA in semester-III but they were nevertheless sent through Semester-IV on probation where they were asked to also take the resit examination of the first three semesters. Affidavits were taken from the appellants to the effect that this would be the last chance to be provided to them or to be claimed by them.
3. The appellants were unsuccessful to achieve the requisite grade in the rest examinations and also their current semesters. Now after three years and having paid the full fee for the four semesters, they still do not have the degrees that they aspire for. Accordingly, in the writ petition decided by the learned Single Judge, they challenged the treatment meted to them by the University. The ground of challenge is that the new Examination Regulations, 2007 laying down the threshold of minimum CGPA were enforced by the Syndicate of the University on 16-2-2008 whereas the examination of the first semester was completed on 2-2-2008. Hence the said regulations were enforced retrospectively on the appellants' first semester to adversely affect their vested right under the erstwhile regulations to enter the subsequent semesters as regular rather than probation students.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record material showing that the appellants were aware that they were placed on probation through the second semester onwards. Hence they were aware of the enforcement of new Examination Regulations of 2007. These regulations were necessary due to the change of course of instruction for under graduate degree from 2 years to 4 years. The new regulations were enforced by decision of the Academic Council in exercise of powers under section 13(3) of (he Government College University Ordinance, 2002 ("Ordinance"). That provision empowers the Vice Chancellor to take emergency action subject to ratification by the Syndicate. The impugned enforcement of the new regulations was ratified by the Syndicate in the present case. Accordingly the Examination Regulations 2007 are competently/lawfully framed; these were accepted by the appellants and in any event no vested right of students can exist in relation to examination standards.
5. Heard. Before us defaults are evident on the record by the both parties to the appeal. The appellants are at fault for being borderline students who acquiesced to the Examination Regulations, 2007 by accepting promotion to the next semester on probation rather than claiming semester freeze or readmission. They are working persons who joined the evening classes of the aforementioned courses at the University for the advancement of their careers. From this Court they seek the relief of relaxation of the CGPA standard in order that they may pass and secure the professional degree for which they devoted two years and paid in full. However, that possibility of being conferred the degree sought is excluded by the appellants failure to clear the huge burden of current plus several resit examinations that they must pass.
6. On the other hand, the University is in default for having admitted part time students in courses which they decided to discontinue. As a result, rather than offering the appellants an opportunity to repeat or sit out the semester to improve upon their deficient performance, the University encouraged the appellants to proceed to the next semester on probation thus imposing extra work-load for which the appellants neither had time available to prepare and handle such burden nor the capability to independently complete the task. Indeed, the work load was imposed not because the appellants had promised but that the next semester was being offered at the University for the last time. The appellants were swept to the next stage by the University till the third semester knowing well that the appellants being part-time students were incapable of handling the workload of three semesters simultaneously.
7. Accordingly, on the one hand, the appellants who are part-time evening students claim the erstwhile standard of assessment so that they pass the examinations in all subjects in the three semesters. Otherwise under the higher standards set by new Examination Regulations their performance is deficient and unless they clear the unbearable burden of accumulated resit examinations they cannot hope of ever getting their degrees. On the other hand, due to its own incapacity the University has failed to provide the educational facilities expected by and necessary for part time students like, the appellants. As a result, the appellants have been dragged through several semesters with courses for which they lack both the time and capability to prepare and succeed.
8. To compound the appellants' difficulties, learned counsel for the University informs that now even Semester-IV is no longer available at the University. This is, therefore, a case of the University being in a tearing hurry to conclude its course without providing a fair and reasonable opportunity to the appellants to absorb, comprehend or demonstrate their learning. Clearly, the respondent University should in this case have factored and provided for the needs and limitations of working, part-time students lib - the appellants. The consequence of an unmanageable workload being imposed on the appellants should have been foreseen by the University. It appears that the University was indifferent to the needs of its student and also to its own representations and responsibilities as an elite institution of excellence.
9. The plea of the University that the appellants had waived their objections to the new Examination regulations is insignificant because the appellants had no choice in the matter as the next semester was the last semester being offered for their course. Indeed the University is no longer in a position either to offer any resit examination or to carry the appellants into Semester-IV of their courses. That reflects apathy by the University for its duty to honour its words and reputation for providing facilities that are commensurate to the need's of its students like the appellants. Such an obligation is cast upon the University by its representations as an institution of excellence made at the time of offering admission to part time candidates to its courses and enrolling the appellants. In terms of law the University is bound by promissory estoppel to provide a fair and reasonable course format and educational facilities that are required by a part time student of ordinary ability for passing the examination. The fact of the appellants seeking admission at the University constitutes their reliance on such a promise by the University. Reference is made to Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Commerce and others v. Salahuddin and others (PLD 1991 SC 546).
10. In the present case, expecting part time students to resit all their past examinations in their Semester-III amounts to imposing an onerous and unreasonable burden, inter alia, for the University's inability to discharge its responsibility as a reputable institution of excellence to provide the necessary support and fair opportunity to the appellants for retaking or sitting out the semesters in which they were deficient or for availing supplementary examination so as to meet the academic standards set by the University.
11. To the mind of the Court the gravity of the University's said failure to discharge its responsibility for offering its students reasonable facilitation and support in demonstrating their capabilities is far greater and consequential than its claimed waiver of rights by the appellants. Likewise the appellants cannot have a case for relaxation of academic standards by the University because enforcement of the new Examination Regulations, 2007 is lawful and competent under the Ordinance and also because the appellants are barred by laches and acquiescence as they did not claim the present relief when they were first put under probation under the new Examination Regulations, 2007 in the Semester-II of their Master degree courses.
12. In the circumstances, therefore, it is ordered that at the option exercisable by each appellant, the respondent-University shall make arrangements far providing one opportunity to the appellants to sit for their examinations in the subjects in which they have been adjudged deficient according to University standards. This would entail the provision of staggered examinations of each probation semester and not collective examinations of all probation subjects in the 3 semesters. This order is passed in the parental jurisdiction of the Court by considering sympathetically the contribution of three years time by the appellants to their Master degree courses and the substantial expense incurred by them in this behalf.
13. If the appellants pass examinations for any semester that would equip them with a qualification of the passed semester in order to claim advance standing in a similar or the same course at another University. Otherwise, if the appellants fail in one or more semesters then they have no ground to complain as they lack the learning and knowledge for passing that semester. The respondent University shall administer examinations to the appellants under the higher standards of the Examination Rules of 2007. Disposed of.
M.U.Y./F-23L Order accordingly.
Comments
Post a Comment