1987 PLP 3053 (MLD)
SHAHID SALEEM — Petitioner Versus BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 3053 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Lone, J |
| Parties | SHAHID SALEEM — Petitioner Versus BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Calendar of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Sargodha |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 3053 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Calendar of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Sargodha as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 3053 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Lone, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 3053 (MLD) (SHAHID SALEEM — Petitioner Versus BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. M. Almas with M. Iqbal Sarguna for Petitioner.
- M. A. Aziz Khan for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 21st November, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
Chap. 5, R. 18--Quashing of result--Forgery--Petitioner notified as a successful candidate in Intermediate Examination. but his result was quashed after four years from date of declaration when he had already passed Bachelor of Arts Examination and got employment and especially when power of Board to cancel result had already expired under proviso to rule 18 of Chapter 5 of Rules in Calendar of Board Vo
1. II (Revised Second Edition), 1984--Held, order of Board cancelling result of petitioner was without lawful-authority and of no legal effect--Board being a tribunal of limited jurisdiction, was bound by its Rules--Without going into question of fraud, which petitioner vehemently denied, declaration of his result in contemplation of rules, had become a past and closed transaction and created a legal right in his favour and it could not be cancelled after expiry of period of four years.
Judgment & Decree
4. I nave heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record. Rule 18 of Chapter 5 of the Rules appearing in the Board's Calendar, Vol. II, Revised 2nd Edition, 1984, is attracted for adjudication of the controversy arising in this case. In so far as this Rule is relevant to this case is reproduced below:-- "The Board shall have the power to quash the result of a candidate after it has been declared: (1) if he/she has been disqualified for using unfair means the examination; or, (2) if a mistake is found in his/her result; or, (3) if it is found that he/she was not eligible to appear in the examination; or, (4) for Fraud, Forgery and Impersonation that may be determined by the Board: Provided that the orders of quashing the result is issued not later than four years from the date of declaration of the result of the examination concerned: Provided further x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x." It is not disputed that the petitioner's result was notified on 10-1-1976. Thus, even if some forgery was committed as per Rule aforesaid the power to cancel his result lasted with the Board for a period of four years, expiring on 9-1-1980. In this view of the matter, the cancellation of his certificate vide letter' dated 5-10-1985 or for that matter dated) 17-2-1987, is without lawful authority.
5. The learned counsel for the Board, however, came forth with the plea that the Rules were amended and power conferred on the Chairman to quash the result even after the expiry of four years, but he had to concede that this amendment in the Rules was brought long after the accrual of right to the petitioner under Rule 18 ibid. The amended provision, cannot be used retrospectively to the detriment of the petitioner.
6. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the Board obliquely pressed another argument that limitation is not a bar for quashing the result founded on fraud, but, such a spacious proposition cannot be extended to the case in hand. The Board is a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction and is bound by its Rules. Without going into the question of fraud, which the petitioner vehemently denies, the declaration of his result, in contemplation of the Rules, had become a past and closed transaction and created a legal right in his favour. It, therefore, could not be cancelled after the expiry of period o four years.
7. In view of the above, this writ petition is accepted with costs and the impugned order declared to have been passed without any lawful authority and as of no legal effect. M. Y. H./S-140/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.