1985 PLP 1465 (SCMR)
SOHAIL ASGHAR BHATT1 — Petitioner Versus BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE & SECONDARY EDUCATION and
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1465 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | SOHAIL ASGHAR BHATT1 — Petitioner Versus BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE & SECONDARY EDUCATION and |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1465 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1465 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1465 (SCMR) (SOHAIL ASGHAR BHATT1 — Petitioner Versus BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE & SECONDARY EDUCATION and). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th May, 1985.
- Muhammad Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 1-4-1984, passed in Writ Petition No. 139 of 1984).
Arts. 185(3) & 199--Educational institutions--Disciplinary action for using unfair means in examination--Validity challenged--Point of jurisdiction taken in grounds of writ petition--High Court judgment being silent about it giving rise to presumption that point was not urged during its hearing--Petitioner having generally questioned in memorandum of appeal question of jurisdiction of Enquiry Officer, had not taken objection specifically there--Case not fit for interference by Supreme Court--Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑The petitioner was punished by the authorities of the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, for the use of unfair‑means in the examination, with which the High Court refused to interfere in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
2. The contention is that the punishment had been awarded by the Enquiry Officer who was not competent to do so as under rule 17 of the Rules relevant to the conduct of examinations, the Standing Committee or, if that Committee is not unanimous, the Chairman himself or the Board, if the matter is referred by the Chairman to it, can take a decision. The point, it appears, had been taken in ground (k) of the grounds in the writ petition but the High Court's judgment is silent about it, giving rise to a presumption that the point had not been urged during the hearing of the writ petition. In any case, we find that the petitioner, though he had in the memorandum of appeal generally questioned the jurisdiction of the Enquiry Officer, had not taken the objection specifically there. It is, therefore, not a fit case for interference by this Court. The petition is dismissed. M.I Petition dismissed