' SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.--- The petitioner appeared in LLB Part-I for the first time in 2006 Annual Examination and could not qualify the same. He reappeared in the next examination held in 2007 (Annual) and was declared successful. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not allow him to appear in LLB Part-II Examination (Supplementary) against which the petitioner filed the instant petition. The petitioner was allowed to appear provisionally in the examination, scheduled to be held on 26-2- 2008. The result was, however, made subject to decision of this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was eligible candidate to appear in LLB Part-II, Supplementary Examination for the year, 2007 and refusal of respondent No,2 is illegal and unlawful. He has further submitted that according to Rule 4 of Chapter IV of the Calendar of University of Punjab a candidate who has attended prescribed number of lectures during the academic year preceding to the examination can appear in the subsequent examination. The restraint for appearance in the supplementary examination pertains to the candidates who have totally failed or remained absent in the examination. Learned counsel has submitted that the Supplementary Examination has been made open to the students placed in compartment/ exemption. The petitioner's case is that one of exemption' and as such the respondents have no lawful justification for disallowing the petitioner to take Supplementary Examination.
3. The respondents have filed parawise comments and reply to this petition. It has been asserted in the parawise comments that the petitioner was not liable to appear in Supplementary Examination according to Rule 4 of the Chapter IV of the Calendar of University of Punjab. While referring to Rule 4 of Chapter IV of the Calendar of University of Punjab (supra), it is contended that Supplementary Examination is only open to the students who are placed in compartment. The petitioner was successful in all the papers in LLB Part-I and such he cannot be allowed to sit in the Supplementary Examination. While referring to Rule 3 Volume 2 Chapter IV of the Calendar of University of Punjab, 1998, it is contended that only those candidates can be exempted from re-appearing who have appeared in all subjects and have passed in four or more papers obtaining, an aggregate of 45% of the marks of those papers. Exemption relates to the papers which the candidates' have passed with an aggregate of 45%. Learned counsel has emphasized that the petitioner is neither a student who is placed in compartment nor in exemption. The case of "Tahir Husnain Aziz and another v.
University of Punjab through Vice-Chairman and 2 others" (2005 CLC 1389) was referred to contend that the declaration of result in an exemption where a candidate has appeared through interim order of High Court is subject to result of constitutional petition. Appearance of such candidate in examination, does not confer upon the candidate the right additionally.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Law Officer and record perused.
5. Rule 4 of Chapter IV of the Calendar of University of Punjab, 1998, provides that a candidate can be allowed to appear in the subsequent examination, without attending fresh course of lectures provided that the candidate has attended prescribed number of lectures and tutorial meetings during the academic year preceding examination. "Academic year", as defined means the total period during which instruction is required for purpose of any examination between the commencement of one examination and commencement of next examination twelve months later.
The petitioner in the instant case had appeared in the Supplementary Examination, while he passed his LLB Part-I examination in 2007 Annual. He has not completed his "Academic Year" comprising over a period 12 months, he as B such is not eligible to appear and take his LLB Part-II Supplementary Examination. Additionally, the petitioner was not placed in compartment, nor his case is that one of exemption. Exemption relates to exemption from re-appearing in the examination, in which a candidate who has appeared in all subjects and passed four or more subjects with an aggregate of 45% marks. The petitioner's case does note fall within the ambit of exemption.
6. Viewing case of the petitioner from any angle, he is found not entitled to sit in the examination and was rightly declined by the respondents to take supplementary examination. The result of the petitioner cannot be officially declared. He has since become eligible to sit in the forthcoming examination, thus, the petitioner if approaches the respondents, they will accept his application and they have also undertaken to accommodate the petitioner in the next examination. So far as previous examination is concerned, he was not eligible to sit in it, therefore, his result cannot be declared.
7. This petition is without any merit and is dismissed accordingly. Office is C directed to seal his result and keep it in the record.