' The facts involved in this Constitutional petition, concisely stated, are that the petitioners, Meter Readers in WAPDA, in order to improve their qualifications during service had sought admission in Law College for the Session 1991-92. On the 17th of December, 1992 the petitioners were informed that their names have been struck off as they were short of their attendance and not up to the required percentage of 50% of lectures as per rules 17 and 18 of the Revised Islamia University Regulations for Admission to Post Graduate classes. The names of about 30 other students had also been put off the Rolls for short attendances. Subsequently, however, 6 out of the 30 students were readmitted by virtue of Notification dated the 4th of May, 1992 and the 14th of May, 1992. The same concession, however, was not extended to the petitioners and thus they were treated with arbitrariness and discrimination.
2. The petitioners for the first time had challenged the decision of the University Authorities in Writ Petition No,1230 of 1992 but had withdrawn the same on the 25th of October, 1992. They have again brought the present writ petition repeating the prayer that they be readmitted in the F.E.L. Classes for the Session 1991-92 and be allowed to appear in the forthcoming examination taking place on the 15th of November, 1992.
3. The University Authorities were asked to offer parawise comments in respect of the averments in the petition. The respondents had deplored irregular behaviour of the petitioners who did not qualify on account of their short lectures. About readmission of the expelled students, it was stated that the Session commenced from the 1st of June, 1991 to the 30th of May, 1992 and those whose names were struck off the Rolls were readmitted after they had applied within time to the concerned Authority and their explanation was accepted. The petitioners had not submitted their petitions within 7 days to the Dean of the Faculty concerned and within 40 days to the Vice- Chancellor of the University, therefore, the benefit of rule 17 was not admissible to them.
4. At the outset of the arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents invited the learned counsel for the petitioners to meet the following objections:---
(1) The present petition was barred under Order XXIII, rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil. Procedure as permission to file fresh petition was not taken.
(3) The respondents have not violated the rule 17 of the Admission Regulations which otherwise is purely a non-statutory rule and, therefore, its violation cannot be enforced through writ petition.
(4) The petition suffers from lachcs.
(5) Relief cannot be allowed to the petitioners in view of changed circumstances inasmuch as the period of Law Education has been increased from 2 years to 3 years.
5. The petitioners had filed the previous petition on the 14th of October, 1992. On the 25th of October, 1992 the learned counsel, for the petitioners after arguing the matter for some time expressed his mind to withdraw the petition as the petitioners wanted to redress their grievances from the University Authorities. The petition, therefore, was disposed of as unpressed. The petitioners had neither reserved the right to bring fresh petition on the same cause of action nor the Court of its own had reserved such right for them to bring new action. The learned counsel for the respondents has strenuously contended that the provisions of Order XXIII, rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure applied with full force to preclude the petitioners from bringing such action. He placed reliance upon Muhammad Jamil and others v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner and others 1986 CLC 2425.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that withdrawal of a writ petition at a limine stage is no bar to the second petition filed even on the same facts and that the principle contained in Order XXIII, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to suits cannot be strictly applied to his case. The learned counsel further maintained that the order dated the 25th of October, 1992 in the previous petition did contain intention of the petitioners to file the petition in case their grievances were redressed by the respondents. The cited case-law by the learned counsel for the respondents is clear that when the petitioners had filed a writ petition, earlier on the same facts, which they had withdrawn unconditionally and without any permission to file fresh petition, the latter, on the same facts to adjudicate the same matter, was not maintainable. This ratio was also earlier enunciated in Messrs Khan Mahal Cinema v. District Magistrate, Gujranwala and another PLD 1973 Note 27 at p.36. The reliance of the petitioners on S.Nisar Ali v. Feroze Din Rana and another 1969 SCM R 933 is not helpful to them as it arises of different facts. For reasons aforesaid I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners in circumstances of the case could not bring the fresh petition and the same was barred under Order XXIII, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
6. I also uphold the objection of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners by not disclosing the fact of previous petition which was filed and withdrawn without permission to bring new one, disentitled them to equitable relief. It was ruled by the Supreme Court in Abdur Rashid's case 1969 SCM R 141 that the petitioner suppressing material fact in his petition was guilty of approaching the Court with unclean hands and was not entitled to get any relief in the writ jurisdiction. No doubt a casual and remote reference to previous litigation does appear in para. 2 of the petition but the same was not enough.
7. The objection of the learned counsel for the respondents as regards laches was that adverse order to the petitioners had been passed wayback on the 17th of December, 1991 but they awoke out of slumber on the 7th of November, 1992 that is about one year after the cause of action had arisen. The case-law cited by him on the subject titled Re: Settlement Authority through the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and another v. Mst. Akhtar Sultana PLD 1976 SC 410. In this case delay of six months in seeking the relief was considered palpable enough to attract notice of the Court. The petitioners have approached the Court one year late and the academic session is also over. The learned counsel for the petitioners tried to explain the delay by saying that the petitioners were spurred to assert their right after the respondents had admitted the other expelled students vide Notification dated the 4th of May, 1992 and the 14th of May, 1992. But even after these dates much water had flown under Thames and by the 7th of November, 1992 a period of about six months had elapsed.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents relying on University of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others v. Ch. Sardar Ali 1992 SCM R 1093 has raised another objection to the maintainability of the petition.
It was ruled that terms and conditions being the non-statutory rules could not be enforced through Constitutional petition. Rule 17 of the prospectus that is Admission Regulations are non-statutory rules and are unenforceable unless they flagrantly violate the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel has further explained that the expelled students were readmitted, as adverted to in the petition of the petitioners, because they had applied for readmission to the Chairman of the Department and the Dean of the Faculty concerned. The petitioners had not done the needful nor applied to Vice-Chancellor within 40 days to grant readmission. Even on merits, thus, the petitioners have failed to make out a case of discrimination. Even otherwise it would not be proper at this stage to grant relief, as prayed for, to the petitioners as from the current year new syllabus for Law Classes has been introduced which has increased the period of study to three years and now no admission on the previous syllabus is admissible to the students
9. For reasons aforesaid I find no merit in the petition and dismiss the same.