1987 PLP 50 (SCMR)

On the basis of the marks obtained by her in the last‑mentioned examination, she applied for admission in the M . B . B . S. Class. She was provisionally selected for admission to Fatima Jinnah Medical College but before he could join the classes or deposit the fees, a complaint was received against her that she was ineligible for admission to M . B . B . S. Class having qualified in F . Sc. examination in parts. The complaint against the petitioner was considered alongwith the cases of some other candidates against whom similar complaint had been made, by a Sub‑committee of the Bahawalpur Board. In its report the said Committee observed that although the petitioner had passed the examination on violation of the relevant rules but the Chairman of the Board might, in his discretion, consider her case under the Hardship Rules. However, the Chairman did not agree with the last portion of the abovementioned report to consider the case of the petitioner as a hardship case and ordered the quashment of her result of the examination held subsequent to her first qualifying F.Sc. (Pre‑medical) examination from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan. This order of quashment of examination result was later on ratified by the Board as well. This order was challenged before the Lahore High Court but without success. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal. Mr. A. R. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case hinged on the true interpretation of Rule 17 of Chapter II of the Rules of the Bahawalpur Board. The said rule, to the extent relevant, is in the following terms:‑‑ "A candidate, who passed the SSC/later Examination may at his option avail himself of one more examination opportunity in the same combination of subjects in the parent Board or in a Board other than the Board from where the candidate passed the examination on merits under hardship regulation to improve the aggregate of marks obtained by him previously, provided ................................................The one chance available to the candidate will be considered consumed when he physically appears in the examination whether in few or all papers." A perusal of this rule shows that the one chance available under it will be consumed when the candidate appears in the examination whether in a few or all the papers. Mr.A.R.Sheikh, very fairly conceded that in a case of improvement of the aggregate it is not possible to improve it by parts unless it is covered by the "hardship rule". However, he attempted to argue that this Court had taken the view that the fact that a candidate had appeared before another Board, was no bar to his appearing and improving his position in a different Board in this connection relied upon this Court's judgment in Muhammad Nazir v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha (Civil Appeal No.1 of 1978). We have perused the judgment in that case and find that it is not of much assistance because the rule interpreted therein was Rule 21 which is not identical in terms with the rule here in question, namely. Rule

17. As for the plea that the Chairman erred in not exercising his discretion in favour of the petitioner under the hardship rules the recommendation of the Sub‑committee of the Board in this behalf we find that the hardship rule, which is contained in Regulation No.10 Chapter IV, gives complete discretion in this matter to the Chairman. The Regulation is re‑produced below:‑‑ "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the regulations and Rules, if, in the opinion of the Chairman, there is a case of real hardship due to causes beyond the control of a student or a candidate for an examination of the Board, the Chairman may pass such orders as he may deem necessary to relieve that hardship. The orders of the Chairman, passed under this Regulation, shall be reported to the Board for information: Provided that such orders of the Chairman shall not alter the award of marks, obtained by a candidate or his result, determined on the basis of that award." The discretion of the Chairman not having been exercised in an arbitrary, mala fide or capricious manner was not open to be interfered with the writ petition and hence no objection can be taken to the judgment of the High Court. This petition fails and is dismissed hereby. S . Q Leave petition dismissed.