1995 PLP 341 (CLC)

M. JAVED BUTTAR, J.‑‑‑The facts leading to the institution of the present appeal are that that the appellant appeared in the Secondary School Second Annual Examination, 1992 held in the month of July, 1992 as a fresh candidate under Roll No. 2 and she passed in six subjects out of eight but failed in Elective Maths and English. However she was allowed nine grace marks in English and was declared as pass as under Rule 10 of the Rules for the Secondary School Examination (hereinafter referred as Rules of the respondent Board) she was to be considered pass if failed in only one subject out of eight.

2. The appellant then re‑appeared in the failed subject (Elective Maths) under Roll No. 33914 in the First Annual Secondary School Examination held in March, 1993 and passed. the same by securing 74 marks. Thereafter, she once again appeared in the English paper (passed by her only with grace marks in her first attempt) in Second Annual Secondary School Examination held in September, 1993 under Roll No. 7722. The general result was declared on 28‑11‑1993 but the appellant's result was withheld and in the meanwhile, she was admitted in Public Health Nursing School at Bahawalnagar for Lady Health Visitor Course. The appellant apprehended that her admission may not be withdrawn on account of low marks if the respondents did not issue her fresh Secondary School Certificate including the marks obtained in English subject in the last Examination held in September, 1993 because her merit will be lowered. In this background she instituted W.P. No. 111‑94/BWP which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber vide order dated 12‑2‑1994. Hence this appeal. .

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the relevant rules contained in the calendar. of the respondent Board.

4. It is worthwhile to have a complete understanding of controversy, to refer to the relevant Rules available in the Calendar of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Bahawalpur, which read as under:‑ "CHAPTER‑I RULES FOR THE SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINTATION

10. To qualify for the grant of the Secondary School Certificate, the candidate must pass in at least seven out of the eight subjects included in components I and II of the scheme of a studies, taken together. 14(ii) A candidate will be given an option to improve his/her marks by re‑appearing in all/some subject/s in which he/she passed with grace ; marks alongwith any failing subject, at Secondary School Certificate Examination level within two years before appearing in the next higher public examination. No further chance will be allowed for the improvement of marks. 18(ii) A candidate who has passed the Secondary School Examination by qualifying in seven subjects may appear in the eighth failing subject before appearing in the next higher public examination. Such a candidate shall on passing the eighth subject, be granted a fresh certificate of having passed the examination in parts" on the basis of combined result of both the examinations, on surrendering the certificate issued previously and after depositing prescribed fee provided that the candidate appears in the examination of the same Board."

5. The respondents are withholding the result of the petitioner of her second attempt made in the English paper on the ground that under Rule 14(ii), a candidate has the option to improve his/her marks by re‑appearing in the paper which she passed with grace marks alongwith any failing subject. 5‑A. It is argued that the appellant appeared in the failing subject in the First Annual" Secondary School Examination, 1993, therefore, it would be deemed that she exercised option available to her under Rule 18(ii) and, thereafter, she was not entitled to the benefit of Rule 14(ii). In other words, the appellant had the option to re‑appear in the subject passed by her with grace marks alongwith the failing subject and not otherwise. The learned Single Judge in Chamber agreed with the respondents on this interpretation of Rule 14(ii) and held that the result of the appellant was withheld legally and lawfully. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

6. According to the respondents, the word "alongwith" appearing in sub rule (ii) means that a candidate can re‑appear in a subject which he/she passed with grace marks if he/she also appears in the failing subject at the same time and not separately. The learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, has very forcefully argued that the word "alongwith" means "in addition to" and does not mean "including". He referred in this connection to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Third Edition, wherein, the word "alongwith" is construed as "in addition to" and not as "including" and in the Black's Law Dictionary; Fifth Edition, meaning of the word "with" is given as `in addition to' but not synonymous with "including".

7. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that Rules 14 and 18 too cover two different situations, namely, (1) to improve position by re appearing in the subject passed with grace marks, and (2) to re‑appear in the failing subject. The position becomes further clear if the limitations for re appearing in the two Rules are kept in view. The candidate under Rule 14(ii) has only one chance to re‑appear in the subject passed with grace marks. He has to avail this chance within two years and before appearing in the next higher public examination while for re‑appearing in the failing subject the only limitation is that candidate has to re‑appear before appearing in the next higher public examination. This makes the position absolutely clear that both the Rules deal with independent situations. It is interesting to note that the learned counsel for the respondents argued that these are two independent provisions but summed up the argument, with the submission that having re appeared under Rule 18 the appellant was disentitled to have the benefit of Rule 14 thereafter. These are beneficial provisions. The rule of interpretation is that beneficial provisions are to be interpreted liberally. Moreover, the chances of re‑appearing in the two Rules arc not alternate and could be availed simultaneously or separately. The learned counsel while laying emphasis on the word "alongwith" failed to appreciate that it is permissive and not mandatory.

8. The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal is accepted and the order of the learned Single Judges in Chamber dated 12‑2‑1994 is set aside, and the respondents are directed to declare the result of the appellant forthwith, and grant her a fresh Secondary School Certificate in terms of Rule 11 of the Rules. AA./A‑724/L Appeal accepted.