2011 PLP 604 (YLR)

TARIQ JAVAID, J.

This writ petition is directed against the respondents on their failure to issue result card of 2nd Part examination qualified by the petitioner. It is maintained that the petitioner appeared in M.A. Islamic Studies first annual, 2007 under Roll No.8081, held in May, 2008. She passed all the subjects except one i.e. Arabic Grammar for which she appeared in first Annual Examination, 2008 along with 2nd part of M.A Islamic Studies and passed the examination. However, her result had been with-held on the ground that the petitioner should have appeared in 2nd part Annual Examination, 2009 whereas she appeared First Annual Examination for which, under the rules, she was not qualified.

2. It appears from parawise comments filed by the respondents that admittedly the petitioner submitted her admission form to appear in MA Islamic Studies Part-I, 1st Annual Examination 2007. The petitioner was declared fail in Paper-III (Arabic Grammar) and was allowed to re-appear in paper-III till 1st Annual 2008. According to the learned counsel for the respondent she should have appeared in 2nd Annual Examination, 2008. It is maintained that submission of admission form in Part-II by the petitioner was in contravention of Regulation (V) of the Statutes Regulations for Master Degree examination under Annual System which reads as under:- "No student shall be permitted to take Part-I/Part-II Examination as an external/private candidate unless he submits an Examination Admission Form, duly signed by the Chairman of the/Director of the Institute/Principal of the Constituent/Affiliated College, certifying that he has, in case of Part-II examination, passed the Part-I Examination in accordance with the prescribed Regulations."

3. According to the learned counsel for the respondents she appeared in examination in contravention of rules and she was not entitled to the certificate. According to the respondent's learned counsel she was only eligible for M.A. 1st Annual Examination, 2009 whereas she appeared in Part-II first annual examination 2008; therefore, her result is being with held and same shall lawfully be cancelled. It appears that respondents were negligent while processing application form of the petitioner. If petitioner was not entitled to sit in annual examination Part-II then her application form should have been rejected by the respondents. It was obligatory on the respondent to see whether her form has been properly filed or not. It is not open for the respondents to allow a student to appear in the examination and once the candidate has passed the examination then the respondents cannot be allowed to alter their position and raise an objection that the candidate was not entitled to sit in the examination for the reason being that office has wrongly allowed the student to sit in the examination. It is also obligatory on the student to appear and file application form for examination in accordance with rules. In absence of any mala fide and due to wrong construction of rules if the application form is filed for sitting in the examination for which student is not entitled, it is responsibility of the respondents to reject application form there and then. However, if the student is ' allowed to sit in the examination and he passes the same then respondents are estopped from denying the fact that the candidate has passed the examination. Their failure to reject the admission form amounts to waiver of objection and operates as estoppal against them.

4. The construction placed on the above rule also appears to be erroneous. It is apparent from the above said rule that the candidate must qualify the master's degree course not earlier than two years. However, a condition that minimum period of one year must elapse before taking the Part-II annual examination does not flow from the said rule. In this case the petitioner passed the remaining subjects except Paper III. She did not appear in supplementary examination and appeared in the next annual examination along with all papers in the 2nd Part of her two years degree course. The interpretation given to the said rule by the respondents is not only devoid of any logic it operates to the detriment of the candidates inasmuch as by this interpretation if a student fails in one subject, he is bound to waste one academic year, a penalty which, is too harsh and unreasonable. In these circumstance, respondents are directed to issue result card as well as certificate/degree in favour of the petitioner under the rules. The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. S.A.K./A-176/L Petition accepted.