JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD NASEEM, J, - The Principal, Public Health Nursing School, D.G. Khan got published the advertisement for the admissions in two years course of Lady Health Visitors. The educational qualification was F.Sc. /Matric with Science 2nd Division C-Grade (minimum 50% Marks in Science Subjects). Miss Shazia Altaf petitioner sent her application. She was admitted to join the course during the year 1994 and is said to have got attested the requisite surety bond. She attended her classes. At the time of the examination she has been intimated vide notice dated 29.11.1995 by the Controller Nursing Examination Board, Punjab, Lahore/respondent No. 3 that her admission is against the" admission policy prescribed by the Government of the Punjab as she was Matric 3rd Division and that her Marks in the Science Subjects were less than 50%. Feeling aggrieved she has filed this writ petition to obtain the proposed relief that the impugned order dated 29.11.1995 issued by respondent No. 3 may be declared as illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect. She prayed that she may be declared as regular and bona fide nursing student/candidate of the school and may further be allowed to sit in the examination being held during the month of March/April, 1996. According to the petitioner she was admitted by the Principal of the Institution and she complied with the requisite conditions. She maintained that her case was forwarded to the Government for relaxation of the conditions which was still pending for disposal.
2. I have heard the preliminary arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner who mainly canvassed that the impugned notice Dated 29.11.1995 is illegal, void and inoperative which is liable to be ignored . Especially when the petitioner had attended the classes for a long period of about one year and that it is a case of hardship qua the petitioner. He continued that on the principle of locus Poenitentiae the convenience and benefit allowed to the petitioner cannot be withdrawn. I express my inability to agree with him. It is a case of commission of indiscipline first on the part of the writ petitioner and secondly on the part of the Principal Public Health Nursing School D.G. Khan. The petitioner was a Matriculate with 3rd Division having less than 50% Marks in Science Subjects. She could not apply for her admission in the two years course of Lady Health Visitors. Even if she had applied the Principal, Public Health Nursing School, D.G. Khan was bound to ignore her application and not to send the call to her. She was also bound not to admit her and to get the surety bond from her. Even if the steps have been taken or relaxation of the conditions the relevant letters in the matter are liable to be ignored being against the Government policy which has been brought to the notice of the petitioner through the issuance of the impugned order dated 29.11.1995.
Muss fuss is emanating about the texture of the society, and the absence of discipline and this is a case of the said instance wherein the Principal, Public Heath Nursing School, D.G. Khan acted illegally, admitted the petitioner and moved the Health Department for relaxation of the conditions.
The Principle of locus Poenitentiae, as such, is not applicable to the instant matter. It shall not be out of place of express that locus Poenitentiae means a place for repentance or an opportunity to undo what one has done. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that the Principal, Public Heath Nursing School, D.G. Khan could, admit any candidate who was not eligible according to the advertisement published in the newspaper. It means that the petitioner and the said Principal are responsible for the creation of the present situation. No Constitutional right of the petitioner stands infringed. Even if the order may be harsh this Constitutional Court has to keep in mind the law, rules and regulations. This Court can not deviate therefrom. Keep in view the advertisement made in the matter for the admission of the petitioner, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to the proposed relief and this petition Need not be further processed with.
3. I, therefore, dismiss this writ petition in lime.