' Brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner was regular student of Government Technical Training College Peoples Colony, Faisalabad. The petitioner appeared in the examination of 3rd year's class of diploma of Associate Engineering DAE in the following attempts: Sr.Name of RollAppeared in Failing No.the exa-No.the following subjects. minationsubjects.
1. Ist A/96 27613FullCT 523Th, appearedCT 573-671, CT 533/624, CT 553/643.
Gen 511/ 611, CT 563/634, CT 442/653. CT 423/664th.
2. 11A/96 20672CT 523Th,CT CT 573/671,5331624Th., CT 533/624,CT 553/643, CT 553/643.CT 563/-- Gen 511/634, CT 611, CT442/653 Pr 563/-634.CT 423/664 CT 442/653,Th CT 423/664 Th.
3. IstA/97 22630CTCT563/634 5331624Th.,Th., CT CT 553/643,423/664 Th.
CT 563/-- 634, CT 442/653 Pr., CT 423/664 Th.,
4. II A/9719792CT 563/634CT 5631634 Th. CTTh. CT 423/664 Th.423/664 Th.
5. Ist A/98 29578CT 563/634CT 563/634 Th. CTTh. CT 423/664 Th.423/664 Th.
6. Ist A/99 37302CT 563/634CT 423/664 Th. CTTh.
423/664 Th
7. II A/9923745CT 423/664CT 423/664 Th.Th., Last Chance.
8. Ist35040CT 423/664Fail in all A/2000Th. subjects exceptCT 423/664 Th.
' Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner appeared in 2nd Annual Examination of 3rd year held by the respondents under Roll No,23745. The respondents declared the result of the petitioner and declared him passed in all the subjects except a subject of C.T 423/664 as is evident from Annexure-A attached with the writ petition. Petitioner submitted admission form in obedience of the intimation of the result card along with the prescribed fee to appear in the aforesaid one paper. Respondents issued roll number slip No,35040 permitted the petitioner to appear in the first annual examination of 2000. Petitioner appeared in the said examination in the said subject.
Respondents declared result of First Annual Examination 2000 showing fail in all subjects against the roll number of the petitioner. Petitioner being aggrieved submitted various applications to the Controller of Examinations and Chairman of the respondents-Board directly as well as through the Principal of the college. The respondents failed to redress the grievance of the petitioner. Petitioner being aggrieved filed W.P. No,22454-2000 which was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 7- 11-2000 a copy of the writ petition was sent to respondents who were directed to decide the application of the petitioner after providing personal hearing to the petitioner. Respondents decided the application of the petitioner vide Annexure R-H attached with the report and parawise comments filed by the respondents and observed that the petitioner was not entitled to be declared successful in all subjects as he was considered a fresh candidate w,e,f, DAE First Annual Examination 2000 as per rules. Petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is penalised by the inaction of the respondents. The respondents directed the petitioner to appear in the Annual Examination 2000 in one subject.
Petitioner submitted admission form to appear in failing one subject which was accepted by the respondents. Roll number was also issued to the petitioner. Petitioner appeared in the failing subject and passed the same. Therefore, principle of locus ponitentiae is attracted in all respects in view of aforesaid circumstances. Therefore, respondents had no authority to withhold the result of the petitioner and declared him fail in all subjects. He further submits that petitioner is penalised malafidely by the respondents.
2. Learned Legal Advisor of the respondents submits that petitioner appeared in the said examination for 7 times as is evident from para. 1 of the report and did not qualify the said examination within the prescribed chances. He further submits that petitioner had to appear as a fresh candidate in all the subjects under the rules and regulations of the respondents. He further submits that under the direction of this Court, the case of the petitioner was considered by the competent authority under the parental jurisdiction and found that petitioner was not eligible to appear in the said examination.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. It is admitted fact that petitioner did not qualify the examination in question in the prescribed attempts. Therefore, petitioner has to appear in all subjects by virtue of Regulation No,4 of the respondents which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "A third year student appearing for the first time, after having become eligible, in Final Year Examination but failing in any number of courses will be required to pass all these courses along with the remaining courses of second year, if any, in subsequent six consecutive examinations."
' It is admitted fact as mentioned above that petitioner failed to qualify the said examination within six consecutive attempts. It is also settled principle of law that roll number was issued by the respondents to the candidate provisionally. The Result Gazette was also issued by the respondents with the following endorsement "an entry appearing in this Notification does not in itself confer any right or privilege to a candidate for the grant of the certificate which will be issued under the regulations on the basis of the original record in the Board's office". This fact brings the controversy in the area that mere issuing of a intimation or result-card to the petitioner does not confer any right or vested right to the petitioner as per principle laid down by this Court in Rehat Siddiqui's case (PLD 1975 Lah. 257) which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rehat Siddiqui's case (1977 SCM R 213). Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out that respondents violated of their rules and regulations. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ali Mir's case (1984 SCM R 433). It is also settled principle of law that general allegations of mala fide is not sustainable in the eyes of law as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments: ' PLD 1974 SC 151 (Saeed Ahmad Khan's case) and PLD 1990 SC 1092 (Aman-Ullah Khan's case).
It is pertinent to mention here that competent authority has passed the order under the direction of this Court in parental jurisdiction after applying his independent mind as is evident from Annexure R-II attached with the report and parawise comments. This Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own finding in place of the finding of the Tribunal below as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Mussaduq's case PLD 1973 Lahore 600.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merits and the same is dismissed.