KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.- This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 9334, 9474, 9475, 94?
1. 9482, 9483, 9484, 9485, 9486, 9487, 9488, 9520 of 1995, 2773, 2774, 2775, 2776, 2777, 2778, 2779, 2780, 2781, 2782. 2783, 9442, 9443, 9444, 9445, 9446, 9447, 9448, 9449, 9450, 9471, 9472, 9473, 9480, 9521 of 1995, 6807 and 9451 of 1996 as common questions are involved. These petitions were heard along with Writ Petition No. 20581/1996 filed by International College of Home Economics, Lahore, calling in question the refusal of the Director Public Instructions of the Government of Punjab to register the institution and of the University to grant affiliation.
2. These petitioners have been filed by the students of the above college and impugned the refusal of the respondent University to issue them the roll numbers for taking First Year Annual Examination of B.Sc. Home Economics. The relief claimed in these petitions is that the refusal of the respondent University be declared without lawful Authority and the said University be directed to issue the petitioners the necessary roll numbers and for permitting them to take the Examination, lt may be noted that after these petitions were entertained, each of the petitioners/students was permitted to take the aforesaid Examination as an interim measure. It was made clear that this permission will have no bearing to the merits of the main petition. It also seems that subsequently and pending disposal of these petitioner, this Court directed the declaration of the results of the petitioners and some of them were further permitted to take the supplementary/next Examination.
3. In support of these petitions, leamed counsel have raised the point that the petitioners bona fidley believed the representation of respondent-College that it was affiliated and that it would ensure their Examination by the respondent- University and if the respondent No. 3 has failed in its promise, the petitioners cannot be blamed and denied the examination as the denial will ruin their career. On behalf of the University it is pointed out that the respondent-College is not affiliated to the University and under its Regulations it cannot permit the students of such non-affiliated institutions to take its examination. It is further urged that wayback in 1992 pending affiliation, permission was granted to few students of the respondent-College but it was made expressly clear to the College that this will not serve as a precedent and that in future the University will not accept any of its students as examinees is not the first examination of Home Economics. It is pointed out that this was purely an ad interim arrangement and this permission was granted expressly on the undertaking of the respondent-College that it will fulfil the necessary conditions for affiliation. It is urged that the petitioners are not being given any discriminatory treatment.
4. The question whether affiliation has been rightly refused has been deceived to the connected judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 20581/1996 filed by the College. It has been held that in denying registration as well as affiliation, the Director Public Instructions of the Government of Punjab and the Punjab University have not acted illegally. The core issue, therefore, stands settled.
The only question to be seen in these petitions is whether the petitioners can claim any right to be examined by the University even though the College, in which they are studying, is not affiliated.
The answer is provided in the General Statutes contained in Chapter No. 13 of the Calendar of the University of the Punjab for the year 1977-78, Volume II. These Statutes appear at Page No. 259 onwards, Page No. 264 are the regulations regarding the First Examination in Home Economics. The relevant portion of Regulation No. 1 is reproduced below:
(1) The First Examination in Home Economics shall be open to any woman college student who:-
(i) has been on the rolls of a Home Economics College affiliated to the University for B.Sc. Home Economics throughout the one academic year preceding the examination. (The Syndicate may condone a deficiency in this period for very special reasons);
(ii) .....................
(ii) ..........................
(iv) ............. ...
It is clear that the respondent-University under its own Statutes/Regulations and subject to fulfilment of other conditions, is bound to examine only such students who have been on the roles of some Economics College .Affiliated to the University. Admittedly, respondent No. 3 in a college so far not affiliated to the University and in the circumstances the refusal of the University to permit the petitioner to take First Examination in Home Economics cannot be said to be illegal or otherwise vitiated.
5. The argument that the petitioners obtained admission in the respondent- College on the assurance extended by the College regarding its affiliation and its capability to have its students examined by the Punjab University has no weight. The assurance has been extended, according to the petitioners, by the respondent- College and not by the University. Therefore, the University cannot be held responsible for nonfulfilment of the promise. For alleged breach of the promise, it would be for the petitioner to see as to what legal action can be taken against the respondent- College and its sponsor. Similarly, the further argument that the denial of the University is harsh and is likely to jeopardise the educational career of the petitioners cannot be accepted, at least no in law. It is correct that the petitioners are placed in a difficult situation but it cannot be said that the petitioners have landed in this situation due to the fault of the University. The petitioners may themselves to blame, at least partly for this situation. Before taking admission in the respondent- College they ought to have been more vigilant and thoroughly checked the credentials of the College from the relevant authorities of the Government as well as from the university. This Court in exercise of equitable jurisdiction cannot help the parties who lend themselves in situation like the present one. In any case the argument in equity cannot override the express letter of law. The express letter of law is that the University can only permit the students of affiliated college to take the examination. This Court cannot direct disregard of the above express letter of law, even if this Court was to have frill sympathy for the petitioners.
6. In some of the petitions (W.P. Nos. 9471, 9472, 9473, 9480, 9521 of 1995, and 6807 of 1996), it has been urged that as the Government College of Home Economics, an institution duly affiliated with the respondent-University was indicating willingness to take over the students of the respondent- College and prepare them for the University examination, this Court should issue a positive writ for the purpose. Respondent-University has maintained that once again under its Regulations, it cannot permit the migration of the students of non-affiliated college to an affiliated college. It has opposed the issue of the writ. The objection of the University regarding migration again seems to be well based. Even otherwise it would be highly unusual for this Court to issue such a direction particularly when the Government College of Home Economics is not represented in these proceedings. Resultantly, even this prayer cannot be allowed. However, let it be clarified that this judgment does not stand in the way of the respondent-University, the Government of Punjab, Education Department and the Principal of Government College of Home Economics to sort out the difficult situation in which the petitioners have fallen and to see if some thing can be long to avoid damage to their educational career.
7. For what has been stated above, all these petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.