2002 PLP 1128 (MLD)

Muhammad Sharif Warsi for Petitioner Shahid Waheed for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st November, 2001. The present writ petition is directed against the actions of respondents with the prayer that the respondents may be directed to "declare the petitioner to have got through in the Intermediate Examination, 1993 by securing successful marks in all the subjects".

2. Brief facts, as discernible from the writ petition are that the petitioner was a regular student of second year in Apwa College and appeared in the Intermediate Annual, Composite Examination, 1993, under Roll No.23269 held in April, 1993. As per result intimation card issued by the respondents, she was shown as failed in the paper of A Civics and was declared eligible to re‑appear in the said paper in the Supplementary Examination of 1993. According the petitioner, she after observing all the formalities appeared in the said supplementary' examination in paper of Civics and was declared successful in the said subject in the result declared in February, 1994. The respondents issued a result card to the petitioner, declaring successful in the subject of Civics having secured 74/200 ;narks, but in the same result card the petitioner was shown absent in the English Paper. The writ petition then narrates that after the receipt of result intimation, the petitioner immediately filed, different applications to the respondents thereby divulging the true facts and requesting therein to redress her grievance, but to no effect, hence the present Constitutional petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was declared successful in the subject of English in the Annual Examination, 1993 and was only shown as failed in the paper of Civics only, in which subject she was later on declared successful in the Supplementary Examination taken by her. In the above perspective, the learned counsel has submitted that the respondent No.2 was not competent to revise/quash the result of the petitioner, in which she had already been declared as successful. He has further submitted that before taking this punitive action, the petitioner was neither issued any show cause notice nor she was heard by the respondents. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner appeared in Intermediate (Annual) Examination, 1993, wherein she obtained 45 marks in English and 47 in Civics, but the tabulator erroneously posted 95 marks in English instead of 45 marks. However, subsequently she qualified in the paper of Civics securing 74 marks, but the tabulator who prepared the result of the Supplementary Examination showed her absent in the subject of English. He further submits that during super checking of the result, it revealed that the petitioner's actual marks were 45 in English but erroneously the said marks/were posted as 95 instead of 45 and when the said mistake was disclosed, the same was rectified by the Board by intimating the petitioner to re‑appear in the English Paper.

4. From the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the facts are not disputed. The respondents have admitted that in the first instance, the petitioner was intimated by the respondents that she could not qualify the Civics paper, whereas she had passed in all the other subjects including English paper, but subsequently when the error to the effect that the petitioner has in fact obtained only 45 marks in English, but they were erroneously posted as 95 marks, she was asked to re‑appear. It is not the case of the respondents that before rectifying the results of the petitioner and quashing the same and asking the petitioner to re‑appears in English paper, wherein she was previously shown as having been passed securing 95 marks, the petitioner was neither heard nor any show‑cause notice was given to her. According to the rules contained in Calendar Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, the result of the candidate cannot be quashed without issuing show‑cause notice to the candidate and giving him/her an opportunity of hearing. Admittedly, ' no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner neither she was served with any show‑m,; notice and all the proceedings were undertaken by the respondent at the back of the petitioner, thus, she had been condemns unheard. It has been held in Board of Intermediate and Secondary, Education , Sargodha v. Shahid Latif (1990 SCMR 771) that a, final order was to be passed by the Board, it was, therefore, mandatory to hear the examinee so that he could plead his case and put forward his point of view before any action is taken against, him. In view of the above, as the petitioner was not head before the quashment/rectification of her results, therefore, the action undertaken by the respondents, whereby the petitioner was directed to appear in a paper in which she had been declared successful, cannot be countenanced under any stretch of imagination and as such is not maintainable under the‑law. In this case even the principle of natural justice has been violated by the respondents.

5. In view of the above reasons, without dilating upon the other controversies raised in the writ petition, the same is allowed and the aforesaid action of the respondents is declared to be without lawful authority and having no legal effect. The result would be spat the matter highlighted in the writ petition shall deemed to be pending before respondent No.2, who shall decide the matter afresh after providing a sufficient opportunity of. hearing to the petitioner any of course in accordance with law. There is no order as to costs. H.B.T./S‑419/L Petition allowed.