1998 PLP 622 (CLC)

Revised (i) Riaz Shahid (W.P. No.22626 of 1997) 11 13 (ii) Muhammad Khaqan Khan (W.P. 22663 of 1997) 18 136 (iii) Muhammad Murtaza Yousaf (W.P. No.24067 of 1997) 24 48 ??????????? It is also stated that the University has no objection if any petitioner coming from another department of the University wants to rejoin it.

4. In support of the case of the petitioners, heavy reliance is placed by their learned counsel on the case reported as Chairman, Selection Committee/Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore and 2 others v. Wasif Zamir Ahmad and another (1997 SCMR 15). Learned counsel for the respondent‑University has, on the other hand, placed reliance on the case of the Engineer in Chief Branch through Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and another v. Jalaluddin (PLD 1992 Supreme Court 207) to contend that the principle of locus poenitentiae is not attracted to an incorrect order already acted upon. It is contended that nobody can build any right on a mistake or incorrect act and that it is open to the authority, to undo the act and correct the mistake on discover of the same.

5. The judgment relied by the petitioners' learned counsel does appear to support their contention. However, the perusal of the two judgments reveals that while deciding the case of Wasif Zamir Ahmad (1997 SCMR ,15) the judgment in Jalaluddin's case (PLD 1992 Supreme Coffin ?()7) was not cited before their lordships Their lordships also noted the tact that the respondent in that case 'was likely to complete the second year course of M.B.B.S." It was further observed that "this being the position, by lapse of time the respondent had obtained a valid right to continue his studies". It was, in these circumstances, which arc missing in the present cases as petitioners have not started attending classes muchless clearing any examination, that the Court came to the conclusion that the Selection Committee/Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore could not undo the discovered mistake. The judgment in Wasif Zamir Ahmad's case does not in terms or in my humble view even by implication, repeal the statement of law laid down in the case of Jalaluddin. This statement of law, if I may say so with respect, is well‑settled. No justiciable right can be built on an act which is the result of mistake or misrepresentation or fraud. This has also been the principle upheld in earlier judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan namely PLD 1975 SC 331 "The Chief Settlement Commissioner Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and others".

6. It will be seen that the correctness of second merit list as such has not been called in question by the petitioners. The factual assertion that the first merit list was the result of computer mistake has also not been controverted. The only plea is that once having been admitted and dues received, each of the petitioner has got a right to study the Diploma course and this right cannot be taken back even on discovery of the mistake, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners go down the merit list as noted above.

7. The argument, in my humble view, is fallacious and cannot be given effect to in view of the statement of law in the case of Jalaluddin and Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan (supra). It was open to the University to undo the mistake/wrong and they have validly done it. Acceptance of the plea of the petitioners would mean that the petitioners should be directed to be admitted even at the cost of scores of other students who stand higher to the petitioners on the revised merit list. Writ jurisdiction is not meant to perpetuate an, illegality/wrong (PLD 1975 SC 331) or discourage merit, if I may respectfully add.

8. For what has been stated above, these petitions are dismissed without any order as to costs. A.A./R‑45/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions dismissed.