The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner appeared in 1997, 1st Annual B.A. Examination and due to his absence he was declared fail in English and Sociology, therefore, he appeared in Second Annual Examination, 1997 lbr the said two subjects, out of which he cleared Sociology subject and failed in English as he only secured 65 marks, since the petitioner was short of one mark for passing his English subject. He moved an application to the respondent for the grant of relief of one mark but his application was misplaced.
2. Learned counsel the "petitioner while relying on Regulation No,7 of the Punjab University which is as under:--- "The minimum number of marks required, to pass his examination shall be thirty-three per cent. In each subject (separately in written, practical) provided the candidate who passes in two subjects but fails in one subject or part thereof by three marks or less shall be deemed to have passed the examination provided that he takes examination in all the subjects at one time."
Contends that this was the original text of the Regulation which was amended as follows:- "That B.A./B.SC candidates who fail in one subject or more by five marks or less be declared successful by adding the additional marks up to 5 marks and so added additional marks deducted from other passing subjects. This concession be made applicable to those who- take the examination in all the subjects at one time or appeared in the failing subjects. This concession will be granted once in the examination."
3. In this view of the matter contention is that the petitioner is entitled to one grace mark and he should be declared as pass in the English subject. He referred to Sheraz Anwar v. Baha-ud-Din Zakriya University of Multan 1999 CLC 720. It is also contended by him that this judgment was challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court through Civil Appeal No,371 of 1999 but the same was dismissed as not pressed, therefore, said judgment has attained finality .
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents contends that the above-referred Regulation No,7 was adopted by Baha-ud-Din Zakriya University, Multan as it was in its original shape. Since the amendment has not been adopted by the respondents-University therefore, the same is not applicable in the case of candidate of 13aha-ud-Din Zakriya University, Multan. It is next contended that in the judgment cited above this question was not taken note of in the said case and particularly the respondents were not represented in the said case. It is also pointed out by him that this petition also suffers front lathes as the petitioner was >declared fail in 1997 while he approached this Court in September, 1999. It is also pointed out that there is no application on the record to show that the petitioner ever applied to the respondents for grant of one grace mark.
5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties.
6. I am in agreement with the contention of learned counsel for the respondents inasmuch as this petition is hit by laches. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner made any application to get 13 his grievance resolved within a period of two years from the date of his result.
Lt is also not established from the record that Baha-ud-Din Zakriya University, Multan, has adopted amendment made by Punjab University in its Regulation No,7 in the year 1996. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable, inasmuch as the point raised by learned counsel for the respondents was not taken note in the said case. It is a different point.
7. For what has been stated above, 1 find no merits in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.