' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---The appellants herein by leave of this Court, have challenged judgment dated 21-12-1991 of the Lahore High Court (Multan Bench), whereby Intra-Court Appeal No, 69/1991, filed by them against judgment dated 14-9-1991 of learned Single Judge of that Court, was dismissed.
2. The appellants appeared as private candidates in B.Ed. Examination (Annual 1988) held by respondents. The result of the examination was announced on 20-4-1990, but the result of the appellants as well as some other candidates was withheld on the ground that they did not teach for 9 months without break in a recognized school. The appellants made representations to the University Authorities for declaration of the result but of no avail, while Khalilur Rehman and some other candidates through Writ Petition No,1063/1990 challenged the action of the University Authorities, for withholding the result of the examination. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court (Multan Bench) on 14-5-1991, allowed the Writ Petition and directed the University Authorities to declare the result of the Examination. The University Authorities did not assail the aforesaid judgment before the Supreme Court and the same attained finality.
3. The appellants also invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for the same relief but the Writ Petition was dismissed on the ground that they had approached the Court with delay.
4. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 27-4-1992, to consider the contention that the appellants were not granted the relief like others similarly situated on the ground of delay which did not occur due to any lapse on their part as they were not associated with the proceedings and had been making representations to the University Authorities.
5. We have heard learned counsel for appellants as well as the Controller of Examination, Baha-ud- Din Zakaria University who appeared in person. The Controller Examination admitted that the case of the appellants was identical to that of Khalilur Rehman and others whose result had been declared in compliance with the order of the High Court. He has also not controverted the submission made by the appellants' counsel that the appellants had been making representations to the University Authorities for the declaration of the result.
6. In these circumstances the appellants cannot be treated differently from those similarly situated at the hands of the University Authorities.
7. In the result this appeal is allowed with a direction to the respondents to declare the result of the appellants in the Second Annual 1988 B.Ed. Examination. As the respondents did not seriously contest this appeal, there shall be no order as to costs.