MUHAMMAD AHSAN IQBAL HASHMI Versus CHIEF SECRETARY PUNJAB, LAHORE

ORDER

ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.--- Through this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents to issue the Laptop as per regulations.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner graduated B.A. LL.B (Hons) 5-Years Annual Programme in the year 2012 by securing 3.11/4.00 CGPA. During his said degree course, an advertisement was published by the Education Department to deliver the Laptop to eligible candidates. As per the criteria, candidates securing more than 60% marks in the annual examination or securing 70% or above marks in the case of semester system could get the Laptops. Accordingly, a list was prepared in which the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No.6 but he was not delivered the Laptop, hence this writ petition.

3. The petitioner present in person submits that the respondents have failed to perform their statutory duty, therefore, writ may kindly be issued against them with a clear cut direction to release the Laptop to the petitioner as being an eligible candidate.

4. In the report and parawise comments submitted by respondents Nos.2 and 3, it was admitted that the petitioner passed his B.A. LL.B (Hons.) Three Years Programme in the year 2012 with CGPA (cumulative grade point average) of 3.11 out of 4.00 but it was specifically stated that the University Teaching Department was required to submit the list of eligible candidates for Laptop Scheme within a day for onward transmission to the concerned quarters vide letter dated 26.11.2011. Accordingly, a list was prepared on the basis of the result declared on 22.06.2011 disclosing that the petitioner had secured 2.90/4.00 GPA and, therefore, he was not found eligible. However, he improved his performance in the 9th semester and secured 3.49/4.00 GPA according to the result declared on 19.01.2012 and as such on the stated date he is not entitled to any Laptop.

5. Arguments heard. File perused.

6. It was admitted that the petitioner secured 3.11 out of 4.00 in the cumulative grade point (CGPA in year 2012) by winning Grade-B on the basis of the final transcript issued to petitioner on 02.07.2012 vide Serial No.7421 with Roll No.5-07-14, Registration No.2007-glm-19. Its result in Semester-08 shows that his GPA was 3.23. A comparative glance on the different results from Semesters:01 to 10 reveals a gradual increase from 2.81 in the Semester:01 to 3.81 in the Semester:10. The argument of the learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 that in Semester:08 he received 2.90 which was subsequently increased on the basis of the overall result is not supported on the basis of any formula or any mathematical calculation. On 26.11.2011 a letter was issued to the Principal of the Gilani Law College/respondent No.3 to give the names of the LL.B students with their marks, percentage, which was responded by issuing the result of the Semester:08 of the petitioner in which he was shown at serial No.11 with GPA 2.90 on the basis of the semesters result dated 22.06.2011. The case of the petitioner is that these marks were corrected by awarding 3.23 GPA much before the stipulated date of 26.11.2011, and that the proof of this fact is the transcript of the result of B.A. LL.B (Hons) 5-Years Programme of 2007 to 2012 declared on 02.07.2012. Surprisingly, the result of the petitioner for Semester:07 shows 2.59 CGPA but in the final transcript it has increased to 3.12.

7. Throughout his professional career the petitioner will be able to show the final result of the transcript showing 3.11/4.00 with Grade:B to assess his educational competence. At the given point of time i.e; before 26.11.2011 the result was corrected by increasing his GPA to 3.23 as the respondents own the contents and entries of the said final transcript and, therefore, they cannot deny its benefit to the petitioner, particularly when the dates of passing the Semesters:01 to 10 were not mentioned in the said final transcript.

8. On the above stated reasons, the respondents could not deny issuance of Laptop to the petitioner as he was awarded 3.23/4.00 GPA in Semester:08 and, therefore, a writ is hereby issued to the respondents to forthwith issue the Laptop to the petitioner being an eligible student at the given point of time.

9. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.

ZC/M-6/L Petition allowed.