1993 PLP 676 (MLD)

(4) W.P. No.10082 of 1992 Muhammad Arshad v. Secretary, Education, Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore and another together as common questions of facts and law arise in these matters.

2. Grievance of the petitioners in these petitions was that their results of P.T.C. examination were not declared by respondent No.2, Saad Ullah, Assistant Director (Examination) Directorate of Education (Schools), Lahore Division, Lahore, without any legal justification. In W.P. No.8055 of 1992 and the connected W.P. No.8056 of 1992, W.P. No.8057 of 1992 and W.P. No.8058 of 1992, respondent No.2 was summoned to appear before this Court on 31-8-1992 on which date the following order was passed:-- "Mr. Asif Akhtar Malhi, Advocate. Muhammad Saadullah, Assistant Director Examination is present with record. He says that result of the petitioner shall be disclosed shortly. In view of his statement, this petition is disposed of as having been fructified." From the above order, it is evident that Muhammad Saadullah, Assistant Director (Examination) made a statement before the Court that result of the petitioner shall be declared soon. This order was also signed by the said respondent in token of its acceptance by him.- Vide Cr.O. No506/W of 1992, a complaint was made by the learned counsel that order of the Court was not complied with by the respondent despite his commitment. In the said petition on 4-10-1992 the following order was passed by this Court:-- "Syed Afzal Haider, Advocate. Respondent No.4, Saad Ullah, Assistant Director (Examination) is present with record of the case. On 31-8-1992 he appeared in the main writ petition and stated that the result of the petitioner shall be declared shortly and accordingly the petition was disposed of as having been fructified. This petition has been moved with a complaint that the respondents did not comply with the said order. In the circumstances a fresh direction is issued to the Assistant Director (Examination) to comply with his statement, referred to above on or before 5-10-1992. In case of non-compliance, the respondent appear to face contempt before this Court on 6-10-1992. V observation no further action is called for in this contempt which stands disposed of." Again vide Cr.O. No.532/W of 1992, another complaint was made' the learned counsel that order of the Court was not complied with by respondent without any cause being shown in that behalf. Accordingly, 14-10-1992, a third order was passed by this Court, which reads as follows: - "Syed Afzal Haider Advocate. Mian Nisar Ahmad, Advocate on Court's call. Muhammad Saad Ullah, Assistant Director Mr. Zafar Iqbal Bajwa, Advocate. Muhammad Saad Ullah, Assistant Director Examination is present. He has tendered unqualified apology to the Court. He further sa3 that result of the petitioners has been announced by him and as pe the declaration the petitioners have succeeded in their examination. I, view of the unqualified apology of the respondent-contemner, the contempt notice is hereby recalled, The petition stands disposed of."

4. Through these Constitutional petitions, fourth complaint was made by the learned counsel that despite the clear commitment made by respondent No.2, he failed to announce the result of the petitioners as warranted by law. Learned counsel has challenged the addition of words "subject to eligibility" to the result cards having been issued to the petitioners. According; to the learned counsel, there was no authority vested in respondent No.2 to announce their result conditionally inasmuch as no such condition? was earlier imposed by the said respondent to the declaration of the result. According to the learned Additional Advocate-General, respondent No.2 was competent to impose such? a condition while declaring the result of the petitioners. However, he was unable to tell the reasons for the condition. Forms of the petitioners were accepted with the necessary fee and were verified by the respondents Apart from the above, the earlier orders show beyond doubt that no such conditions were imposed by the respondent and as such the imposition of the condition was based on mala fide. The petitioners succeeded in their examination as was declared by respondent No.2. This being so, he was not at all competent to impose the condition to the declaration of the result. It is also clear from the earlier orders that no such condition was imposed by him in the circumstances, the impugned condition "Subject to eligibility" on the result cards of the petitioners shall be deemed to have never imposed. Accordingly, these petitions succeed and are allowed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./A-258/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions allowed.