' SHOAIB SAEED, J.---Through this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that respondent be directed to allow her to appear in one remaining paper of M.A. Part-I. And result of Part-II class which has already been announced/uploaded on the website of the University may be declared accordingly.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner appeared in M.A Urdu Part-I Annual Examination 2010 under Roll No,11766 in all papers but could clear three papers and failed in the remaining three papers in the first attempt. Petitioner re-appeared in failed subjects in Part-1 Supplementary Examination 2010 under Roll No,6493 and cleared two more papers but again failed in one paper (Parer-I), result accordingly was declared as " Re-appear in Paper-I till 1st Annual 2011".
3. Petitioner was to re-appear in failed Paper-I of M.A. Urdu Part-I Annual Examination 2011 that being the last and 3rd chance (Under the Statutes and Regulations for Masters Degree Under Annual System of Examinations) instead petitioner sent examination form for appearance in M.A.
Urdu Part-II Annual Examination 2011 by making false and mis-statements in the examination form.
In it she stated that she has passed M.A. Urdu Part-I Annual Examination under the Roll. No,6494 (whereas her actual Roll No,6493 under which she failed in Paper-I). Admission form submitted was not signed by her, father's name in Urdu column was written "Ashiq Hussain" while in English column it was mentioned "Ghulam Qutab-Din Sial". On account of misstatement/suppression of facts, the office under misconception issued Roll Number Slip to the petitioner for appearance in M.A. Urdu Part-II Examination 2011 under Roll No,1680, therefore, petitioner's result card was declared as RLP in the result gazette notification because she was not eligible for appearance in M.A. Part-II under the rules afore-referred.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was successful in Part-I M.A.
Urdu Examination according to intimation conveyed by university, thereafter she submitted admission form for M.A. Part-II and respondents issued Roll Number for appearance in Part-II Examination. Thereafter petitioner received previous result card relating to Part-I exam wherein she was declared failed in one paper but was allowed to appear in Part-II Examination, where petitioner passed all the subjects. She was entitled to declaration of result card which was withheld unlawfully by the respondent. Due permission was accorded by the University Authorities, after fulfilling of the procedural formalities she was allowed to sit in the examination. Petitioner is entitled to reappear in one failed paper of Part-I M.A. Urdu and also of declaration of withheld result of Part- II Examination.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that University Calendar does not allow a candidate who has failed to clear all his/her papers of Part-I in three chances. Clause 18(b) of the Statute and Regulation Under Annual System of Examinations read as under:-- "If a candidate fails to appear in, or does not qualify, either a portion, or whole, of Part I Examination, in the aforementioned three chances, in accordance with the prescribed Regulations, he shall 'no longer be eligible to appear in any subsequent Part-I Examination".
' The petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands therefore, not entitled to discretionary relief.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. It is evident from the record that the petitioner could not clear all her papers of Part-I despite availing three, chances, through misstatement of facts she could manage to appear in Part-II of the examination but clause 18(b) of the Statute and Regulation Under Annual System of Examinations is absolutely clear in this regard, therefore, without having passed Part-I petitioner was not eligible to appear in Part-II of the examination, she having not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to discretionary relief, no one can be given the benefit of one's own wrong or fraud. Any superstructure built on weak foundation is not sustainable. Reliance was placed on the cases reported as Mst. Farhana Riaz v. Government of Sindh and others (2001 SCM R 1430) wherein a candidate was provided with four chances but having failed, the candidate was to vacate the seat for other deserving candidate. In case reported as Ali Yousaf v. Chairman of Academic Council (2000 SCM R 1222) "Rule of passing first professional M.B.B.S. Examination in four attempts did not infringe upon right of a student to pursue his studies in medical college on the contrary it ensured arrest of falling standards of education in the institutions and there was no arbitrariness and unreasonableness in the rule". In the case reported as Miss Sidra Naeem v. Vice Chancellor, Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan and 4 others (2012 M LD 1824) without having passed the matriculation examination petitioner was not entitled to appear in the Intermediate and Bachelors Examination Report Card clearly mentioned that "error and omissions were expected" and in the result card of the Bachelor's examination; it was stated that "result card was issued as a notice only and any entry appearing in it does not in itself confer any right or privilege independently to the grant of proper certificate/degree, which will be issued under the Regulations in due course". Petitioner wants another chance to clear one paper of M.A. Part-I which she could not clear in three chances as provided under section 18(b) of the Statute and Regulations for Masters Degree Under Annual System of Examinations. She also wants declaration of M.A. Part-II result. Petitioner cannot be allowed another chance nor can she be issued her M.A. Part-II result as she was not eligible to appear in the said examination because of non-clearance of all papers of M.A. Part-I. Moreover, at the foot-note of result card it clearly mentions "This result notification is issued as a notice only. Errors and omissions are expected. An entry appearing in it does not in itself confer any right or privilege independently to the grant of proper Certificate/Degree which will be issued under the Regulations in due course." In view of the above rule as well as in the light of the law laid down in the afore-referred judgments this court cannot issue any direction to the respondent as it would amount to perpetuating an illegality committed by the petitioner in connivance with some official of the university.
For what has been discussed above, this writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.