1992 CL C 1949 (PLP)

5. The learned Additional Advocate‑General, however, relied upon Rule 2 of the Rules framed by the Punjab Board of Technical Education vide notification dated 30th January, 1989 to contend that as the admission form of the petitioner was not received by the Board before the prescribed date, the petitioner was not eligible to appear in the examination.

6. Rule 2 of the Rules framed by the Board of Technical Education vide Notification dated 30th January, 1989 on which reliance has been placed by the learned Additional Advocate‑General reads as under:‑

2. To be eligible to appear in the Diploma of Associate Engineers Examination, a candidate:‑ (a) must have been enrolled in a recognized affiliated institution; (b) must have paid the prescribed registration fee to the Board by such dates as fixed by the Board; (c) must have submitted his admission form and the prescribed fee for examination through the Head of his Institution by such dates as may be fixed by the Board; (d) must have been registered with the Board; (c) must have fulilled the requirements of attendance Rules; (1) must have satisfied the Principal of the Institution where he is enrolled of his good conduct; (g). must have satisfied the Principal of the Institution where he is enrolled about his satisfactory progress in the prescribed courses of study and satisfactory performance at the Internal Tests and Examination.

7. It is an admitted position that according to the above Rules the petitioner could not have sent his admission form nor deposited the examination fee directly with the respondent. On the other hand the rules insist that the admission form must be submitted through the head of the institution concerned. It is also to be seen that in the public notice dated 4th September, 1991 whereby the schedule for examination was announced, it was specifically provided that the institutions instead of sending the fee for an individual student should remit the same in lump sum for all the students.

8. It follows from the above that only obligation cast upon the petitioner was that he should have submitted his admission form and deposited the examination fee within time with the institution in which he was studying. Both these conditions were admittedly fully met with. That being so the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for any lapse on the part of the institution which was acting as an‑agent of the respondents.

9. It is to be noted that the institution, in which the petitioner is studying, is being run by Government itself under the control of Board of Technical Education, Allama lqbal Town, Lahore. In this view of the matter also, it is obvious that the Principal was acting on behalf of the Board while receiving fee and the examination forms. It would, therefore, be highly inequitable to hold that the petitioner could not have taken the examination as his form had not been forwarded by respondent No.3. In view of what has been stated above, the petition is allowed and respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner forthwith. No order as to costs. A.A./N‑82/L Petition accepted.