1998 PLP 432 (CLC)

Allah Bakhsh Kulachi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 5th August, 1997. The brief facts of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner got admission in SC Pre‑Medical in 1st year in Government Degree College Jam Pur for the Session 1992 to 1994. The college authority allotted him Roll No.5. The petitioner was eligible to appear in the Annual Examination, 1994 but he could not appear on account of illness. He submitted admission form for Supplementary Examination, 1994 but he was not allowed to appear as he was not eligible according to the rules of the respondent. The petitioner submitted admission‑form for appearing in the Annual Examination, 1995 in the office of respondent and Roll No.2245 was allotted to him. He appeared in the said examination and passed five subjects and failed in two subjects i.e. English and Physics. The petitioner was allowed to appear in the failing subjects in 1995 Supplementary Examination. The petitioner appeared in the Supplementary Examination conducted by the respondents but the respondents withheld his result on the ground that he was not eligible to appear in the examination on the ground that under the law his appearance as a private candidate was not warranted by any provision of law. The petitioner submitted his Admission Form for appearing in Inter Annual Examination 1996 in full subjects of pre medical group. The petitioner submitted application to respondent No. l and the petitioner was provisionally allowed to appear in the examination. Consequently the petitioner appeared in the first paper of the examination and he was allowed to sit in the examination at 8‑00 a.m. but subsequently his paper was taken back by the Supervisory Staff at 8‑30 a.m.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he completed two years in the said college. The petitioner submitted Admission Form which was accepted for appearance in the Annual Examination, 1994 and attached certificate issued by the college that he was bona fide student in the college during Session 1992‑94 and he was allotted Roll No.5. Subsequently whole appearing in the Supplementary Examination he submitted application to the Chairman and he was permitted to appear in the said examination, therefore, principle of locus potentia is attracted. The action of the respondent is mala fide, arbitrary, against the provisions of the Rules and Regulations. To resolve the controversy between the parties vide order, dated 27‑7‑1997, Principal Government College, Jam Pur was directed to depute some official to appear in this Court alongwith relevant record. The Principal appeared in person and stated that the name of the petitioner has been struck off from the college role due to the non‑payment of fee and other college dues on 31‑5‑1993. Copy of the, notice alongwith other documents has been placed on record.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that Annexure "B" is a forged document as is evident from the face of the Annexure "B" in which session is mentioned 1993‑

94. Similarly the noting on the application of the petitioner to allow him provisionally is also a forged document. The document is not signed by the Controller as well as the Chairman. He further argued that the notification was issued that the private candidate of Intermediate level will not be allowed to attempt the subject involving practical w.e.f. Intermediate Annual Examination, 1993. He further argued that the petitioner submitted wrong affidavit with the Admission Form, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal contended that the Principal did not bring the whole record relating to the Session 1992 to 1994 and a direction may be issued to Principal to bring all the record.

5. I have given my active consideration to the respective contentions of both the learned counsel for the parties. I have asked during the arguments to the '' learned counsel for the petitioner whether the Principal of the College has any enmity with the petitioner as the Principal stated that the petitioner belonged to his area and he stated that petitioner did not complete the practical and did not get readmission, after 31‑5‑1994. In view of the statement of the Principal in Court in the presence of petitioner, who did not allege any enmity exist between the petitioner and the Principal, I am not inclined to call further record. Keeping in view these circumstances, the disputed question of facts cannot be decided under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The petitioner filed wrong affidavit with the Admission Form as the petitioner's name was struck off from the College role on 31‑5‑1994, therefore, the petitioner concealed the material facts from this honorable Court, therefore, he is not entitled to get any discretionary relief.

6. I am fortified by the judgments of the Supreme Court 1969 SCMR 141 and 1983 SCMR

196. The writ petition is not maintainable as the respondents did not violate any rule or regulation. The right must be based on law, therefore, p/a in the absence of any law, the petitioner has no vested right, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that no rule/law having been violated by respondent the issuing of a writ would amount to an interference with the internal autonomy and functioning of the respondent. For this, support is sought from "R" v. Dunsheath (1950) 2 AER

741. Thorne v. University of London (1966) 2 AER

338. The impugned action not permitting the petitioner to sit in the examination was, thus, quite justified on law and facts. The petitioner cannot make any legitimate grievance against it.

7. As a result of what has been discussed above, the petitioners have failed to make out any case for interference in writ jurisdiction, therefore, their writ petitions failed and dismissed with no orders to costs. However, the petitioner has, appeared in the examination keeping in view the circumstances of the present case the petitioner shall approach to respondent No. 1, who is directed to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically in a paternal jurisdiction as hardship case. A.A./G‑71/L Petition dismissed