The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that petitioner appeared in B.A.
Annual Examination, 1997 under Roll No.055096. The respondents declared the result and the petitioner was declared failed in English Language as is evident from Annexure 'A'. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the Supplementary Examination held by the respondent in November, December, 1997 in failing subject of English Language. The petitioner could not qualify the same as is evident from Result Card Annexure 'A' attached with the writ petition. The petitioner submitted an application on prescribed form of the respondents and after depositing requisite fee for re- checking of Papers A and B of the English Language in question. The respondents did not re-check the paper of the petitioner and petitioner could not appear in Annual 1990 Examination on account of inaction of the respondents. The petitioner appeared in the Supplementary Examination 1998 and she could not qualify her examination as is evident from Annexure 'C'. The petitioner approached Ombudsman for redressal of his grievance but Ombudsman did not redress the grievance of the petitioner due :o non-cooperation of the respondents. The petitioner appeared in Supplementary Examination 1999 under Roll No.010571E. The respondents declared the result of the petitioner in the Result Gazette as R.L. (Result later on) on account of objection of previous Roll Number i.e. 006572 Supplementary, 1998. The petitioner enquired from the respondents office about her result. It transpired that petitioner has obtained 72 marks. The respondents directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.500 fine for getting the result card on account of non-furnishing of previous Roll Number. The petitioner filed an application before the respondents with the prayer that her result be declared but the respondents did not pass any order on her application and the petitioner is constrained by the aforesaid circumstances to file this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was not eligible to appear in the last examination under the rules and regulations of the respondents. The petitioner was only eligible to qualify the B.A. Examination within five chances but the petitioner failed to qualify the same within the prescribed chances.
3. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that petitioner appeared in the last examination in accordance with law as the petitioner submitted the admission form and the officer/official of the University after verifying the record issued the Roll Number to the petitioner.
The principle of locus poenitentiae is attracted and the respondents have no authority to take contrary stand. He further submits that petitioner is penalised by the inaction of the respondents.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself. It is admitted fact that petitioner had to qualify the examination within the prescribed five chances but the petitioner failed to qualify the same within the prescribed chances, therefore, petitioner is not eligible to appear in the subsequent examination as the Roll Number was issued provisionally to the petitioner to appear in the last examination. In arriving at this conclusion I am fortified by the following judgments:-- 1994 SCM R 532 Akhtar A.I Javed's case, 1995 SCM R 421 Nadir Khan etc.'s case, and 1996 SCM R 1101 Muhammad Hamid Shah's case.
The respondents have already cancelled the result as the petitioner was not eligible to appear in the said examination as per principle laid down by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rahat Siddiqui's case PLD 1975 Lahore 257 and 1977 SCM R 213.