1995 PLP 1317 (CLC)
REHANA KAUSAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1317 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, J |
| Parties | REHANA KAUSAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Educational institution‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1317 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Educational institution‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 1317 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1317 (CLC) (REHANA KAUSAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghaus Muhammad Ch. for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th October, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Examination‑‑‑Withholding result of candidate‑‑‑Candidate who could not appear in Examination on account of some compelling circumstances, applied for appearance in all papers in Supplementary Examination‑‑‑Candidate was issued Roll No. and she appeared in said examination but her result was withheld by Authorities on ground that Board of Examination had made decision that any such student who had not appeared in Annual Examination, would not be entitled to appear in Supplementary Examination for the first time in all papers‑‑‑Board of Examination had taken decision at the time when Annual Examination had already been held‑‑‑Decision of Board, in circumstances, was not applicable to students who had not appeared in Annual Examination as the decision which was made after more than three months from holding of Annual Examination, could not be made applicable retrospectively and right to appear in Supplementary Examination later on was not adversely affected by said decision of the Board‑‑‑Had the said decision of Board been taken before holding Annual Examination, candidate could have been debarred from appearing in Supplementary Examination held thereafter‑‑‑Act of Authority withholding result of candidate was declared to be illegal.
Judgment & Decree
Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of service, therefore, the respondent is hereby proceeded against ex parte.
2. In this Constitutional petition the petitioner has challenged the act of the respondent for withholding the result of the petitioner of Intermediate Supplementary Examination held in October, 1993 in which she appeared against Roll No. 4060.
3. The facts giving rise to this Constitutional petition shortly stated are that the petitioner who was student of F.A. could not appear in the Intermediate Annual Examination held on 8‑4‑1993 on account of some compelling circumstances. She, however, applied for appearance in all the papers in the Intermediate Supplementary Examination held in October, 1993. She was issued Roll No. 4060 and appeared in the said. examination but her result was withheld by the respondent on the ground that the Board on 14‑7‑1993 made a decision that any student of FA who had not appeared in the intermediate (Annual) Examination would not be entitled to appear in the Supplementary Examination for the first time in all the papers.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said decision was taken on 14‑7‑1993 and the Intermediate (Annual) Examination had already been held on 8‑4‑1993, therefore, the same was not applicable to the students who had not appeared in the said examination. According to him the said decision could be made applicable prospectively and the right to appear in the Intermediate Supplementary Examination held in October, 1993 of the petitioner was not adversely affected by the said decision. According to him had the said decision been taken before holding the Intermediate (Annual) Examination in April, 1993 the petitioner could have been debarred from appearing in the Supplementary Intermediate Examination held thereafter. The petitioner was being punished for no fault of her.
5. The argument has .force. Before 14‑7‑1993 Intermediate Examination had already been held in April, 1993, therefore, the said decision could not be made applicable in the case of any student who was to appear in the Supplementary Intermediate Examination according to the previous policy as the said decision cannot be given retrospective effect. The petitioner was not notified before Annual Intermediate Examination was held in April, 1993 that in case of her failure to appear in the said examination she would be debarred from appearing for the first ‑ time in the Supplementary Intermediate Examination to be held thereafter.
6. For the foregoing reasons the writ petition is accepted. The act of respondent for withholding the result of Intermediate Supplementary. Examination of the petitioner is hereby declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and quashed. In pursuance of an interim order passed in this writ petition the result of the Intermediate Supplementary Examination of the petitioner has already been declared and the said declaration shall hold good. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./R‑170/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.