1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 10-6-1981 of the Lahore High Court in an Intra-Court Appeal, whereby the judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing a writ petition which had arisen out of the admission of a petitioner, to King Edward Medical College, Lahore, was dismissed.
2. The essential facts which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner are relevant are : that the petitioner passed his matriculation examination from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan, in 1969, and that be appeared in the F. Sc. (Pre-medical) Examination held by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, in 1971 and passed the same with 486 marks. They were not found enough by him for admission to the medical college, therefore, he, in order to make an improvement in this behalf, again appeared in F. So. (Pre-medical) Examination, but from a different Board, namely, the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan, in 1972-this time securing 539 (pass) marks. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner suffered adverse circumstances . For several years after 1972 and ultimately again in order to make further improvement appeared in F. Sc. (Pre-medical) Examination held by yet another Board (Sargodha) in 1978, he passed in two subjects. After re-appearing in the supplementary examination held by the Sargodha Board in 1979, he passed in the remaining three subjects securing 734 as total marks.
3. Making this result on the basis for seeking admission in the King Edward Medical College. He secured the same in 1980. However, on an information received by the Principal of the said college, this admission was cancelled in February 1981 whereupon the petitioner filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. He then filed an lntta-Court Appeal which having been dismissed by a Division Bench, special leave to appeal to this Court has now been sought on various grounds including the alleged misinterpretation of the relevant rules.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel appearing for .King Edward Medical College and the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha.
5. The latter have opposed prayer for grant of leave.
6. The common ground between the parties is that the basis for admission to the medical college is competitive academic excellence. A candidate, who is unable to secure competitive marks is permitted to improve his position in accordance with the relevant rules. And an improvement uncontrolled by necessary rules, it seems, has not been considered as a healthy basis for competition in academic excellence. The relevant rule for the Sargodha Board in this behalf reads as follows :- Part II, Chapter 2 "Rule 17.-(1) A candidate who has already passed the examination may be permitted to appear in the examination as a private candidate in the current courses for improvement of division/marks provided that he avails himself of this concession at least one year before taking the next higher examination and that he shall be given only one chance for the purpose. If such a candidate improve his division/marks he shall be entitled to receive a new certificate on surrendering his previous Intermediate Certificate. Such a candidate shall not be eligible for award of a scholarship or any academic distinction on the basis of his improved aggregate of marks. In such cases division or general grace is not admissible.
(2) A candidate who fails to improve his division/marks shall retain his original certificate and shall not be eligible to receive any result/detailed marks card/certificate in respect of the result of that particular examination in which he appeared but failed to improve his division/ marks.
7. "Rule 18.-A candidate who has already passed the Intermediate Examination cannot reappear in the said examination excepting as provided in rule 17 above."
8. The joint, reading of the above two rules, would show that a candidate, who has already passed the examination, could be permitted to appear in the examination if he satisfies the conditions laid down in sub-rules (1) and (2) of rule 17 unless he does so, rule 18 specifically provides, he cannot reappear for the same examination. The bar is, in this behalf, unequivocal. Not only this, but also rule 8 in Part 11, Chapter 2 provides further conditions forprivate candidates (the petitioner was a private candidate) to satisfy certain requirements. Sub-rule (4) of rule 8 requires that the candidate should submit amongst others a certificate "(c) that he has not qualified the Intermediate Examination from his parent Board/ University earlier."
9. In this case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner when appearing in tire examination held by the Sargodha Board did not disclose his having earlier appeared and passed twice in the examinations held by the Lahore and - Multan Board. Not only this, but be made positive statement in an affidavit submitted by him to the King Edward Medical College authorities wherein he asserted that since 1969 upto 1979 he had not sought admission to any college nor had he taken F.
10. Sc. Examination held by any Board except the examination held by the Sargodha Board.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that column 14 (dal) (~) to be filled in the form submitted by the candidate for taking the examination held by the Sargodha Board did not require to be filled in by the petitioner, because the said entry related to the examination held by the same Board and not by the other Board. Learned counsel for the respondents have disputed this interpretation of the said entry. Be that as it may, the reading of the relevant rules reproduced above does not leave any doubt that it was necessary for the petitioner to have taken the Sargodha Board in confidence with regard to his earlier achievements in the two examinations held by the Lahore and Multan Board.
12. Reliance -of the learned counsel on the case of Muhammad Nazir v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargoda, etc. (Civil Appeal No. I of 1978) decided by this Court is of no help to the petitioner. He had submitted an affidavit before the King Edward Medical College authorities wherein admittedly incorrect information was supplied by him. Learned counsel hesitatingly admitted that the affidavit contained false statement o facts but explained it by arguing that the petitioner had to do it under the stress of circumstances. He also contended that according to a handout B published by the Secretary, Health, Punjab in the newspapers, it was not necessary to file such affidavits for purpose of admission to the medical colleges. We do not agree with the learned counsel. Even if the petitionwas under stress of some personal circumstances, he was required to state the truth in his affidavit and after stating the truth, he might have pleaded the stressed of circumstances if it was of any avail to him. 'Ale also do not agree with the learned counsel that the handout by the Secretary, Health (Punjab) debarred the King Edward Medical College from asking a candidate to make relevant statement on affidavit in order to determine the correctness or otherwise thereof. It cannot be said that the statement contained in the affidavit was not relevant ; and the college authorities were not far wrong in insisting on an affidavit, because even that, in the present case, proved to be false.
13. Writ jurisdiction of the High Court is discretionary. It should not be exercised in favour of a person with unclean bands. The petitioner tried to seek admission to a medical college by making misrepresentations even if the motive, as now contended by his learned counsel to seek further reeducation and that too for adopting an honourable profession was laudable, the means adopted in that behalf were such that on account of which the person concerned would disentitle himself to any relief in discretionary writ jurisdic--tion of the High Court. Same would apply to the prayer for leave to appeal, because the same is granted in the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner disentitled himself in this behalf. The High Court rightly refused to grant him any relief. The petition for leave to appeal also has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed.