' JAWAID NAWAZ KHAN GANDAPUR, J.---The facts leading to this writ petition are few and simple and may be recapitulated as under:-
(i) that petitioner Lal Mir son of Ibrahim, resident of Gas Bala, P.O. Gonner Farm, Tehsil Chilas, District Diamir, Northern Areas, was nominated and recommended by Agha Khan Rural Support Programme Gilgat N.A. And was admitted to M.Sc., (Forestry) 1992-1994 Course on 15-10-1992, He was to pass five Terms Examination before he could be awarded an M.Sc. Degree in Forestry;
(ii) that the petitioner appeared in the First Term Annual Examination (in six subjects) in March, 1993. He, however, failed in three papers. In July 1993 the petitioner appeared in the First Term (Supplementary) Examination, 1993 in the failed three subjects. When the result was announced the petitioner was found to have failed in one paper. Accordingly, his admission was cancelled as per Regulation No,6(iv) of the Prospectus and resultantly he could not appear in the Second Term Annual Examination to be held w,e,f,, 12th September, 1993;
(iii) that the petitioner, after having exhausted all the chances provided to him under Regulation No,6(iv), filed W.P. No,664/93 in this Court for the redress of his grievance. Alongwith the said Writ Petition C.M. No, 973/93 was also filed on 13-9-1993. Accordingly, the petitioner was allowed not only, to appear in the failed paper of First Term Examination but was also allowed to appear, at his own cost and risk, in the Second Term on-going examination;
(iv) that the petitioner appeared in the Second Term Annual Examination 1993 in eleven out of thirteen papers and was also granted readmission;
(v) that W.P. No,664/93 was disposed of by Honourable Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mr. Justice Abdul Karim Khan Kundi, Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Farooq on 13-12- 1993. As a result, thereof, the admission of the petitioner was regularized and an additional chance was granted to him to appear in the First Term Examination. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under-- "In pursuance of the above proposed amendment petitioner shall also be provided to appear in the supplementary examination as a regular candidate as well one additional chance as a private candidate and petitioner and other students who have availed additional chance under the directions of the Court shall be treated in accordance with the proposed amendment.
' In view of the aforesaid situation this writ petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs."
(vi) that the petitioner was allowed to appear, for the third time, in the failed subjects in the First Term Annaual Examination, 1994 with the new Class of 1993-95 Course. The result was announced on 8-4-1994 and the petitioner again failed even after a chance was granted to him by the Court.
Resultantly his admission was cancelled;
(vii) that the petitioner approached the Court again by filing W.P. No,654/94 on 27-6-1994 and was provisionally admitted on the Court's order. Under the Court's order, the petitioner again appeared in the First Term (Supplementary) Examination, 1994. The writ petition was decided on 6-10-1994 vide which the Court directed to declare the results of the First and Second Terms Examinations and also ordered that the Regulation No,6(iv) should be strictly followed in future. The operative part of the said order is reproduced as. Under:- "5. The petitioners, however, were allowed to appear in failed subjects vide order dated 6-7-1994 of this Court with the direction that their results should not be announced. In consequence, thereto, those who appeared in their respective papers, their 'results be announced and those who are declared successful, should be given promotion to the next class and those who are failing, they should pack up and quit the Institute.
' This writ petition with the aforesaid observations is dismissed. Before parting with the judgment we would like to observe that the Institution itself and the higher authorities of the Universities should strictly follow the rules and they, in no case would allow anybody whosoever he may be to avail more chances than the chance provided by the rules itself unless and until the rules are so amended, as they are supposed to follow the prevailing rules and regulations stricto senso in their letter and spirit.
(Sd.)
S. Ibne Ali. (Sd.)
Dated 6-10-1994. Mian M. Ajmal.
(viii) that the results of the First and Second Term Examinations were announced and it transpired that though the petitioner had managed to pass the First Term Examination but failed in eight papers of the Second Term Examination;
(ix) that the petitioner again appeared in the Second Term (Supplementary) Examination, 1994 and failed in two subjects of Taxonomy and Forest Protection-B. Accordingly his admission was cancelled as all the chances available to him under Regulation No,6(iv) had already been availed by him.
2. The petitioner has, after a lapse of about one year, re-agitated the same issue with almost similar averments/documentary evidence.
3. It may be pointed out that before the present writ petition, Muhammad Tahir Majeed, Manzoor Hussain and Malik Ali Asif, Azur Khan, Farid Alam Khan and Aijaz Ahmad Bhayo also filed W.P. No, 33 of 1995, W.P. No, 34 of 1995 and W.P. No,327 of 1995 respectively, through the same learned counsel, which were contested by the respondents vehemently. All these writ petitions, it may be added, were dismissed by an Honourable Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mr. Justice J.D. Akbarji and Mrs. Justice Khalida Rachid on 30-10-1995. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- "We will not enter into the controversy of amending clause (iv) of Regulation No,6 of the Forest Institution as in W.P. No,654 of 1994 it has been finally decided on 6-10-1994 by this Court that the Institution itself and the higher authorities of the University should strictly follow the rules and they in no case would allow anybody whatsoever he may be to avail more chances than the chance provided by the rules itself unless and until the rules are so amended. These petitions, therefore, stand dismissed."
4. The petitioner, in the main, has prayed that the respondents be directed to give another chance to the petitioner to appear in the forth coming Second Term Annual as well as Supplementary Examinations of M.Sc. Forestry, by ignoring the chances, already given and availed by him previously as the same were neither fair nor just. He has further prayed that if, for some reason, the provisions contained in Regulation No,6(tv) create any hurdle in his way, then the said Regulation be declared as unreasonable and inconsistent with the rules and regulations of the other departments of the University of Peshawar, without lawful authority and thus ab initio void and that the petitioner be declared to be entitled to appear in the Second Term (A) Examination in question once again. In the alternative, it has been prayed, that the matter be referred to a larger Bench so that the controversy is resolved once and for all.
5. Mian Iqbal Hussain, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Saadat Hussain, Deputy Attorney-General assisted by Raja Muhammad Zarif, Assistant Professor, Forest Institute, Peshawar, for respondent's present and heard. We have also gone through the record of the case with some degree of care.
6. It a well-settled principle of law that a writ petition is only competent if the impugned order is either void, without jurisdiction or is a nullity in the eyes of law. Mere irregularity, if any, on the other hand, in some respect relating to the impugned order, would not suffice to subject the said order to scrutiny in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. While going through the record of the case, i,e,, the grounds mentioned in the body of the writ petition, the written comments submitted by the respondents, the rejoinder filed by the petitioner and the documents appended therewith, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is neither void nor without lawful authority. We are further of the view that the contesting respondents have not exercised their jurisdiction illegally and that their approach is neither unlawful nor is tainted with malice or patent error. Beside this the order impugned before us, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, and, therefore, on this score, too, it cannot be impeached. There is nothing on the file to suggest that the contesting respondents have either ignored the provisions of the relevant Regulation or that their action is mala fide, perverse or foolish and has resulted in misarriage of justice. This being so the decision sought to be impached cannot be struck down.
7. On the other hand, the conduct of the petitioner clearly indicates that he is trying to misuse the process of this Court. It is a fact, patent from the record of the case, that as and when the petitioner fails, in any paper, he immediately approaches this Court by filing writ petitions and happens to get interim relief, on the strength of which, he appears in the failed subjects again and again. Needless to mention that he passed the First Term Examination in four (4) attempts. This practice, in our view, must be deprecated and should not to be allowed. Since the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands, therefore, we hold that he is not entitled to the discretionary relief, as prayed for, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
8. This writ petition does not merit consideration is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.