1. ' Through this single order, I shall dispose of W.Ps. Nos.251 and 287 of 2002, as in both these matters, the petitioners, who appeared in LL.B. Part-I Examination of B.Z. University, Multan have sought direction for grant of grace marks.
2. ' Brief facts as in the report and parawise comments of B.Z. University in W.P. No.251 of 2002 are that petitioner Muhammad Ahmed Yar appeared in LL.B. Part-I Examination in the 2nd Annual, 1999 and he was required to reappear in two papers, Paper-I and Paper IV in any two examinations till First Annual, 2001, thereafter, petitioner appeared in First Annual 2000 as a compartment candidate in which he was again required to reappear in Paper-I in anyone examination till First Annual 2001.
3. The petitioner again appeared in Second Annual 2000 as compartment candidate in Paper-I and his result was declared as under:-- "Failed as a whole being last chance."
4. The petitioner had in fact failed to obtain the required 45% aggregate marks though he had secured more than 40% marks in all the papers individually; therefore, he was declared fail as a whole being the last chance. His result card shows that he had secured 268/600 marks, while he was required to secure at least 270 marks. The petitioner applied for grant of two marks, for its addition to his aggregate. His request was declined, hence, this Constitution petition.
5. ' Facts of the case of Muhammad Zahid Khan petitioner in W.P. No.287 of 2002 are that petitioner appeared in LL.B. Part-I in First Annual 2000 as fresh candidate. As per result, he was required to re- appear in Paper-I and Paper III in any two examinations till Second Annual, 2001. The petitioner again appeared in Second Annual, 2000 as compartment case. The petitioner's result was declared as under:- "To re-appear in Paper-I in any one examination till Second, Annual, 2001."
6. ' The result card attached as Annexure "A" shows that although the petitioner has secured 42/100 marks in Paper-I, but he could not obtain 45% aggregate marks, as the total scored marks are 269/600, therefore, his result was declared and he was required to re-appear in Paper-I again in.
7. Any examination till Second Annual 2001 for the reason that he had not secured required 45% aggregate marks i.e. He has secured 269 marks out of 600. The petitioner had requested for one grace mark under regulation No.V of the Statutes and Regulation for LL.B. Three years course. His request was declined. Hence, this Constitution petition.
8. ' The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that petitioner Muhammad Ahmed Yar requires only two grace marks to make up aggregate and petitioner Muhammad Zahid Khan needs one grace mark while under Regulation V the each of the petitioner is entitled to 5 grace marks. Thus, the respondent has illegally refused to grant 2, and one grace marks to the petitioners respectively. The petitioner's counsel has placed reliance upon judgment reported in Rao Muhammad Ashraf v. University of Punjab 1997 CLC 43.
9. ' On the other hand, learned counsel or the respondents has argued that the petitioner in each Constitution petition has appeared in parts in the LL.B. Part-I, Examination, hence, none of the petitioner is entitled to grace marks, hence, the University Authority has rightly refused grant of grace marks to the petitioner of each petition. The learned counsel for the B.Z. University has referred proviso of Regulation No.5 and has also placed reliance upon judgment reported in Muhammad Asim v. Punjab University and others 1998 CLC 5.
10. ' Heard. Record perused.
11. ' Regulation V of the revised statutes and regulations and curricula for LL.B. Three years course of B.Z. University reads as under:- "Every candidate of any part of LL.B. Class in order to be deemed to have passed the first or second Annual Examination, be required to obtain forty per cent. Of the maximum number of marks allotted to each paper and forty-five per cent. In the aggregate Provided that a candidate shall be deemed to have passed:
(a) if he 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 the distribution of five marks over the papers/aggregate in which he fails: ' Provided further that a higher division shall be awarded to a candidate who missed 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 of enabling him to get exemption in any paper and to those who appear in the examination in parts."
12. (Underlining is mine).
13. ' The case of the petitioner in each Constitution petition is covered by the underlined proviso of the said Regulation. The petitioner in both the petitions had appeared in LL.B. Part-I Examination in parts, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to grace marks. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner's reported in 1997 CLC 43 has been considered and has not been approved by the Division Bench in the judgment reported in 1998 CLC 5, therefore, the refusal by the University Authorities to grant grace marks to the petitioners, is in consonance with the regulation as held by the Division Bench of this Court.
14. ' Therefore, both the Constitution petitions, are hereby dismissed being without merit.