IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.- Petitioner appeared under Roll No. 1642 in the examination 'of M.A. English from the University of the Punjab held in April, 1993. She secured 267/700 marks and was awarded 3rd Division as per result announced on June, 11, 1994. It appears that she expressed her dis-satisfaction on the marks stated to have been obtained by her, therefore, for re-checking of result and answer books she approached the Controller of Examination who vide letter dated August 24, 1994 informed that her answer books have been rechecked and no mistake of any kind has been found in tabulating the result or in handling the answer-books or in marking them. All the questions answered by her have been duly marked and the total is also correct. It appears that her grievance was that she personally be allowed to check her answer books. Request so made by her was not acceded to being not admissible under the Rules. Therefore, she preferred a Writ Petition before Lahore High Court on 30th October 1994 being W.P. No. 12425/1994 which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated April, 8, 1999,. Alongwith two other petitions. As such instant petition has been filed for leave to appeal against the impugned order. For sake of convenience operative para from the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- "5. Whatever may may be the reasons, it is clear-that presently there are no scripts with the University :or purposes of verification. Petitioners seem to be negligent even in this Court as they allowed the petitions to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 3.7.1998 the restoration of which was applied for on 29.9.1998.
Be that as it may, this Court at this juncture can hardly help the petitioners. All these petitions are therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs."
2. Learned counsel contended that petitioner attempted 4 questions, therefore, as per Regulations (Instructions) of the University she was entitled for increase of 25% aggregate marks in her result and if this formula is applied in the case of petitioner her marks will increase and she will be awarded second Division.
3. On the other hand representative appearing on behalf of University stated that answersheets (scripts) of the petitioner were not available because as per instructions they have been destroyed after one year from the completion of examination, therefore, in absence of any such material it is not possible to accede to the request of the petitioner. The representative also pointed out that petitioner while applying for rechecking of the result of answer books has not prayed for the increase of 25% aggregate marks in her result.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as representative of the University and have also carefully gone through the impugned judgment. There is no gain saying that after filing of writ petition, petitioner did not obtain a restraint order from the High Court to the Controller of Examination not to destroy the answer sheets (scripts) of the petitioner pending disposal of the petition, therefore, the Controller of Examination acting lawfully destroyed the answersheets on the expiry of one year and against such action of the Controller of Examination no exception can be taken because the Controller has not acted without lawful authority. Moreover relief can also be declined to the petitioner for the added reason namely that before the Controller of Examination no request for adding 25% aggregate marks as per Rules was made because she has attempted 4 questions.
5. Thus under the circumstances learned High Court had no option but to dismiss the petition for the reasons, disclosed in the concluding para in the impugned judgment which was been reproduced hereinabove.
6. For the foregoing reasons we see no merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to .