' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This writ petition was admitted to hearing vide order, dated 17-4-2002.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties on 3-3-2004 a detailed order was passed by my learned brother Muhammad Zafar Yasin J, stating the facts of the case in detail and narrowing down the controversy to be decided in this writ petition. I will not therefore, be reproducing the said facts again. This order be treated in continuation of order, dated 3-3-2004 of this Court and the same be read as a part hereof.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was handed over the result card (Annex 13') with the legend that she has to appear in one or two papers to make up aggregate till 2nd Annual, 1999. According to him, this result card was handed back to the office of the University and it was thereafter that interpolation was made and 1999 was converted in 1998. He further contends that not only the form of the petitioner-lady was entertained for two papers in 2nd Annual, 1999 but she was issued a Roll Number Slip and they allowed her to appear in the said papers. Malik Muhammad Tariq Rajwana, Advocate/learned counsel for the respondent-University, on the other hand, states that no interpolation was made in the result card and further that the Roll Number Slip contains a note that the lady has to appear in all the papers. He also relies on a letter, dated 23-4-2000 which is Annex: R-IV to the written statement.
3. I have examined the original result card present in the file brought by the said officer. There is no manner of doubt in my mind that the last "9" in the year 1999 has been rubbed and re-written with a different ink as "8".
4. Now regarding the Roll Number Slip, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that this document was also surrendered to the Examination officer while entering the hall and it was afterwards that the note was added. I have checked up the Roll Number Slip and I do find that the' note is there. However, nothing turns on it inasmuch as in the letter Annex: R-IV which is dated 23- 4-2000 it is being stated that in case the petitioner does not answer the letter a Roll Number slip shall not be issued to her. Now I find that the Roll Number Slip was issued on 20-3-2000 and there is no denial of this fact. This being so, I am satisfied that the result card was issued to the petitioner- lady with a representation that she can clear one or two papers to improve her aggregate and she was issued a Roll Number Slip. It is an admitted position that she did appear in those two papers and passed both the said papers with good marks as per result certificate (Annex: 'C'). However, she was declared failed.
5. Now the learned counsel; for the respondents is relying upon the University regulations which do not permit such a course of action. This is quite true but then at the same time no fault is to be attributed to the petitioner either by design or by inadvertence. She applied within the time span available to her, as represented in the result card (Annex: 'IV). She was allowed to do so. She was issued a Roll Number slip and was further allowed to undertake the examination but when she had passed both the said papers thereby definitely improving her aggregate enabling her to pass the entire examination, she was confronted with the said Regulation. Such a conduct on the part of the University officials is not to be countenanced at all. Even if it be assumed that through an inadvertence the error crept in the result card (Annex:'B'), it was not open to the concerned University official to interpolate the document instead of dealing with the matter fairly and lawfully and then further to try to create a case leading to circumstances absolutely to the detriment of the petitioner-lady. Even otherwise to my mind, the cases of Chairman, Selection Committee/Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore and 2 others v. Wasif Zamir Ahmad and another (1997 SCM R 15) and Muhammad Abbas Alam v. Director of Education (Elementary) Labour Division and 4 others (1996 CLC 1316) fully cover the facts of this case and I am inclined to interfere with in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. The writ petition accordingly is allowed and it is hereby declared that the petitioner has passed her M.A. (Economics) on the basis of her original result (Annex: 'B') and the result of the two papers, she was duly allowed to appear in (Annex: 'C') and the documents be accordingly issued to her. No orders as to costs.