The relevant facts for the decision of this Constitutional petition are that petitioner appears in the 1st Annual Examination, 1997 of LL.B. Part II. He was declared fail in Paper III. The petitioner, therefore, appeared in this paper in the Second Annual Examination, 1997 and simultaneously also took examination in LL.B. Part III. The final examination whereof is scheduled to start from 10th August, 1998. The result of Second Annual Examination was declared on 17-8-1998. The petitioner got 42 marks out of 100 in Paper III and this way he obtained in all the 7 papers total marks of 313 while according to University Regulations in order to pass the examination he was to obtain 45 % aggregate marks i.e. 315, therefore, the petitioner was directed to re-appear in any of Papers-I, 111, V and VI till the Supplementary Examination, 1998. The petitioner moved for re-checking of the answering book of Paper-III but request was not accepted. Thereafter, he filed the present writ petition which came up for limine hearing on 4-9-1998.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner candidly conceded that he has instructions only to press this petition to the extent of grant of 2 grace marks. In this behalf reliance was placed on judgment reported as Karim Bakhsh v. Controller Examination, Islamia University Bahawalpur 1998 M LD 21. The petition was accordingly admitted to examine question is grant of two grace marks. Notice was issued to the respondents who have appeared through Mr. Rehan Bashir, Advocate and contested the petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per Regulation No.5 the petitioner was entitled to grace marks upto 5. In this behalf reliance was placed on the case of Karim Bakhsh (supra).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that in view of the proviso 3 to the Regulation 5 since the petitioner has passed the examination in parts, therefore, was not entitled to benefit of grace marks. Learned counsel in this behalf has relied on the judgment in Writ Petition No. 13022 of 1995 decided on 1-8-1997.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the record as well as precedents and University Regulation relied by the parties. The two judgments relied upon by the parties prima facie are contradictory but when studied closely it becomes clear that there is no contradiction in view of the provisions of Regulation applicable in these two cases. Incidentally the author Judge in the cases was my learned brother Tanvir Ahmad Khan, J. The judgment of Karim Bakhsh (supra) pertained to Bahawalpur University while the judgment in the other case pertained to a candidate or University of Punjab like the case in hand. In order to clearly understand the rule laid in the two judgments, it is relevant to refer to Regulation 5 of the Punjab University. The same reads as under:-- "Every candidate shall, in order to be deemed to have passed this examination (whether taken in May or in September) be required to obtain forty per cent of the maximum number of marks allocated to each paper, and forty five per cent in the aggregate.
Provided that a candidate shall be deemed to have passed if he (a) fails in any individual paper by a margin of 5 marks (b) fails in the aggregate by a margin of 5 marks (c) fails in more than one paper by a margin which can be made up by distribution of five marks over the papers/aggregate in which he fails.
Provided further that a higher class shall be awarded to a candidate which misses it by a margin of 5 marks or less.
Provided further that the grace marks shall not be awarded to any candidate for the purpose or enabling him to get exemption in any paper and to those who appear in the examination inn arts
6. In the case of Bahawalpur University as is clear from the judgment in the case of Karim Bakhsh there is only one proviso. This made the whole difference. The present case is parallel to case in Writ Petition No. 13022 of 1995 wherein after examining the matter at length from all angles the learned Judges held as under:---------- "The irresistible conclusion drawn from the interpretation of third proviso is that the grant of grace marks would not be applicable to any candidate who has appeared in examination in harts. The respective subjects in which the grace marks are claimed by the petitioners, the examination thereof was taken by them in a supplementary chance. This would clearly demonstrate that the case of all the petitioners is hit by third proviso and they would not be entitled to any grace marks in the circumstances of this case. This being the position the writ petitions having no force are dismissed with no order as to costs. "
The above findings apply full force to the case in hand.
7. The upshot of this discussion is that there is no merits in this writ le petition. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.