' IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.---By means of this order, I intend to dispose of the instant petition viz. Writ Petition No,9959 of 2013, as well as, Writ Petition No,6964 of 2013, Writ Petition No,7016 of 2013 and Writ Petition No,7132 of 2013, as identical question is involved in all the petitions.
2. Admittedly, when the petitioners applied for admission in different faculties in Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University, Multan, they were having less merit than the required one and according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, they were made to believe by a clerk of Admission Branch of the University that if they would pay an amount of Rs,50,000 per-candidate, they would be granted admission as per their demand. At the relevant time, seemingly, with the connivance of the said official, the petitioners got admission, but when irregularity came to surface, the matter was gone into by an Inquiry Committee constituted to probe in the matter regarding malpractices for admission in the classes of Master's Degree for the session 2011-2013 and Graduation Degree for the session 2011-2015 and admissions of a number of students, including the petitioners, were cancelled.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that once the admission was granted, then keeping in view the principle of locus poenitentiae, the same cannot be cancelled. However, the learned counsel has conceded that none of the petitioner qualified for the relevant session by achieving the required merit and it was only on the assurance of some clerk in Admission Branch of the University that after payment of Rs,50,000, the petitioners believed themselves to be the bona fide students of the University in the relevant faculties.
4. When asked as to where is the receipt of such Rs,50,000, the learned counsel responded that since it was not a legal payment; therefore, no receipt available showing such payment to such clerk.
5. The petitioners if they themselves have allowed to be defrauded by an individual act of some official working in Admission Branch of the University, they may proceed against such criminal act of such individual, but said private arrangement in between a student, who was not qualifying up to the required standard and some dishonest official present in the set up of the University dealing with the students privately, would not create any right in the petitioners to get something, which was not according to their entitlement.
6. Admittedly, none of the petitioner obtained the marks in order to bring their status compatible with the required merits and through some fraudulent means, they have shown their admission and were properly checked have no right to continue with their such ill-gotten gains. The same wrong cannot be perpetrated. No fundamental right has been shown to have been infringed by the act of the University authorities in canceling the ill-gotten admission.
7. The petitions having no force are dismissed.