' SHOAIB SAEED, J.---Through this writ petition, petitioner has sought granting of three grace marks in Paper-I Part-III of L.L.B. Examination wherein the petitioner was declared failed in the result card.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a student of law. She appeared in L.L.B.
Examination Papers-I and III of the L.L.B. Under Roll. No,292. Petitioner in Paper-I (Civil Law Procedure) obtained 42/100 marks, she was declared failed in the L.L.B. Part-III 1st Annual Examination, 2011 on account of failure to get minimum 45 marks in Law of Civil Procedure Paper-I.
' Petitioner thrice attempted for L.L.B. In the 3rd and last chance which was 1st Annual Examination, 2012 as she failed to clear one subject she was declared failed as a whole in the Result Gazette dated 20-8-2013 issued by the respondents as well as in the result card delivered to the petitioner.
3. It was contended by learned counsel that petitioner was entitled to three grace marks as the university is empowered to grant such grace marks for declaring her a successful candidate.
Petitioner being from a minority community and this being her last chance was also entitled on compassionate ground. Discrimination was meted out to the petitioner as other students were accommodated by the university under Rule 5 of the Calendar of the University which is reproduced as under:-- "Provided that a candidate, who passes in the aggregate but fails in one paper by three or less or a candidate, who passes in all the papers but fails in the aggregate by three or less shall deemed to have passed the examination."
' Therefore, petitioner was entitled to the concession. Reliance was placed on the cases reported as University of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others v. Akbar Ali (1995 SCMR 537), Sajid Bin Nawaz v. Punjab University (2001 CLC 433) and Zahid Ullah v. N. W.F.P. Public Service Commission through Chairman, Peshawar and 2 others (PLD 2010 Peshawar 2).
4. Conversely, it was argued that the petitioner did not disclose in her petition that she had earlier availed two chances in L.L.B. Part-III Exam 1st Annual and 2nd Annual 2011 but failed to pass Papers-I and III. She did appear in L.L.B. Part-III 1st Annual Examination 2012 which was her last chance and she again failed in Paper-I being her last chance she was declared failed as a whole in the result declared by the university. Moreover, as the petitioner has appeared in L.L.B. Part-III Examination "in parts" she was disentitled to any grace marks in view of barring proviso to Regulation 5 of the University Calendar. Reliance was placed on the cases reported as Jan Muhammad v. The Vice- Chancellor, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan and 2 others (2004 CLC 822) wherein it was held that "if a candidate appears in an examination, may be in all the subjects but if he fails to qualify in any one of the subjects and he had to re--appear in those subjects, his case would fall "in parts" and he would not be entitled to any grace marks". Also relied on the cases reported as Miss Abida Parveen v. Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan through Vice-Chancellor and another (2013 CLC 1150) wherein it was held that "once a student breaks the itinerary, the University seems not to be in a hurry to promote such a student in the next higher class. Such a student has already availed occasion of time by over staying in the university that's why the respondent-university deprives such a student even from a prize or meddle. The over consumption of time by a student who opts to appear in the 2nd Annual Exam cannot be allowed to defeat the right of those who consume less time. This regulation cannot be termed to be prejudicial to the right of the petitioner or discriminatory in any manner".
5. Arguments heard. Record perused
6. Regulation 5 of the University Calendar, proviso is as under:- "Provided further that the grace marks shall not be awarded to any candidate for the purpose of enabling him to get exemption in any paper and to those who appear in the examination in parts"
The said proviso clearly puts a bar/embargo on students who appear in the examination in parts are disentitled to grace marks. Petitioner took three chances and failed even in her last attempt, therefore, in view of the said proviso to Regulation 5 she was disentitled to grace marks. The petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands when she failed to The judgments referred by learned counsel for the petitioner are disclose of having availed two chances prior to the last and third chance. A distinguishable and not attracted in the present case. Moreover, the judgments referred relate to the University of Punjab which has a different calendar from that of the respondent/university. Petitioner after exhausting all chances as provided in the University Calendar had no right to be given grace marks, particularly to a student of professional course of studies as it could affect declining standard of education in the educational institutions.
7. For the forgoing reasons, this petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.