' This petition has been filed with the following relief:- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that act of the respondents in denying the petitioner to appear in the forthcoming final year examination may kindly be declared to be mala fide, illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
' It is further prayed that the petitioner may graciously be allowed to appear in the final year examination vis-a-vis the failing papers without any let or hindrance in the interest of justice."
2. The facts in brief are that petitioner along with eight other students filed Writ Petition No,6709 of 2005 seeking the following relief:-- "In view of the above it is humbly prayed that this petition may kindly be accepted and respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioners to appear in the final terms of examination of Civil and Electrical Engineering which is being held in the first week of December, 2005."
' The said writ petition, however, was dismissed by this Court on 29-11-2005 and I.C.A. No,254 of 2005 was also rejected by a learned Division Bench of this Court on 23-5-2006 holding that appellant (present petitioner) was not at all entitled to appear in the annual examination without clearing the said back log of the failing papers. On 6-2-2007 the learned Law Officer was directed to seek instructions from the respondents. Today, Mr. Muhammad Tariq Rajwana, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent-University and has filed report and parawise comments.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that since in the earlier round of litigation the prayer of one of the appellants in I.C.A. No,254 of 2005 namely Shahid Hussain was allowed and relief was granted to him despite the fact that he had nine failing subjects, whereas, requirement under Regulation-18 was that only such candidate could be allowed to appear in the final year examination who carries eight papers of the lower class, but the petitioner at present is only carrying four failed papers of lower class, therefore, the petitioner at this stage be given a chance to appear in the final examination.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-University has argued that firstly after dismissal of his writ petition as well as the I.C.A. The petitioner cannot re-agitate the matter and secondly that in the earlier round of litigation it was expressly held by the learned I.C.A. Bench that unless petitioner cleared all his papers of first year he could not be allowed to sit in the final year examination and since the petitioner is still failing in one paper of first year, therefore, despite carrying four failed papers of lower class, he could neither be allowed to sit in the final year examination nor could be allowed any relief by this Court under Regulation-18.
5. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgment earlier recorded by this Court in the writ petition as well as in the I.C.A. The learned Division Bench while dismissing I.C.A. No,254 of 2005 made the following observations:-- "We find that appellants Nos.1, 3 (present petitioner) and 5 are not at all entitled to appear in the annual examination without clearing the said back log of the failing papers."
' However, the learned I.C.A. Bench allowed relief to Shahid Hussain one of the appellants in the said I.C.A. On the ground that he had passed all the papers of the first year examination, therefore, he was held deserving for a chance to appear in the annual examination. In the presence of expressed findings by the learned Division Bench declaring the petitioner disentitled from appearing in the final years examination for the reason that he failed in first year's one paper and without clearing the said back log of failing papers, we cannot come to the help of the petitioner merely because he is carrying four papers of the lower class which include a paper of the first year and under the said Regulation unless he clears all the papers of first year he cannot be allowed to appear in the final year examination in terms of Regulation-18 and in case we decide to give such relief to the petitioner the same would not only be violative of said Regulation but would also amount to sitting over the earlier decision of learned Division Bench dismissing I.C.A. No,254 of 2005 which otherwise has attained finality. We, therefore, find no force in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.