' W.P. No. 9259 of 2002, decided on 17th December, 2002 Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent/University to issue result card to the petitioner having secured 462 marks in B.A. Examination. Ist Annual, 2002 under Roll No.9269.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had appeared in B.A. Ist-Annual Examination, 2001 under Roll. No.12411 and passed the same/securing 378 marks and was placed in 2nd Division. The petitioner has availed a chance to improve her 2nd Division in Ist Annual Examination, 2002 under Roll No.9269 and obtained 462 marks after change of subjects. Her result has been declared in official Gazette, wherein it has been declared that the petitioner has secured 462 marks and thus has been placed in Second Division. The petitioner has now improved the marks from 378 to 462, but the Division has not been improved. The respondent/ Authorities have refused to issue result card and degree on the basis of notified result of Ist Annual Examination, 2002. The respondents have filed the report and parawise comments.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner has argued that the respondents are bound to issue result card of improved marks on the principle of locus poenitentiae as the result of the petitioner has been duly notified in Gazette and also to issue the degree of B.A. Of 462 marks. The respondents are left with no authority to refuse to act on the basis of the Gazette Notification as the right has accrued to the petitioner. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment reported as Iqtidar Karmat Majeed v. University of Punjab (2000 CLC 1589). He has further argued that in the W.P. No. 918 of 2000 titled Tauqeer Alam v. B.Z. University has been allowed and a direction to the respondent/University has been issued to issue result card in similar circumstances of the revised result.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that in the unreported writ petition, the respondent/University was not represented. Further submitted that according to the Regulation to the case in hand-regarding the improvement of Division in B.A. Exam. Approved by the Syndicate of the University, the petitioner appeared in Ist Annual Examination, 2002 to improve her Division after change of subjects, but she unfortunately could not improve her Division.
Therefore, according to Proviso of clause B.A. Of the relevant Regulation, the respondent refused to issue result card on the basis of result as the petitioner has not improved the Division. The learned counsel further argued that no illegality has been committed by the respondents and the University has proceeded with the matter according to the Rules and Regulations.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The respondent has not disputed that the petitioner has not improved her marks but the only stand taken by the respondent is that the writ petition is not entitled to result card or degree for B.A.
Having 462 marks as she has failed to improve her Division. The relevant University Regulation reads as under:-- "B.A. A candidate who obtained a third class shall be given two more chances to improve his Division either as a regular or private candidate. A candidate who improves his Division shall surrender his previous degree for being cancelled by the University. The candidates desiring to improve their Division shall be allowed to change their subjects, provided. There is at least one year's interval between the two examinations: Provided that a candidate who obtains second class shall be given only one more chance to improve his/her Division within a period of 2 years of having passed the examination in Second Division. Provided further that the candidates who has passed their BA Examination in the past will be allowed to improve 2nd Division within a period of two years w.e.f. The date of issue of this notification."
' In view of the Regulation, the action of the respondents is in accordance with the Regulation.
Further in the unreported judgment passed by this Court in W.P. No. 918 of 2000 neither the relevant Regulations have been considered nor the respondents were represented hence the view taken in the said judgment is judgment per curium which is not binding. For what been stated above, I find no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.