1999 PLP 1421 (YLR)

The petitioner appeared in the Intermediate Part‑I Examination of 1996 (Roll No.116264), cleared five subjects but failed in Economics. She filed admission forms for appearing in the Annual Examination, 1997 Part‑I and Part 11 bearing Roll No.15767 but appeared in the subject of Economic of Part‑I only and did not appear in Part‑II subjects as according to her, she was sick. Her result card was not issued by the Board on the ground that the rules did not permit the same. Subsequently, she was not allowed to appear in the Intermediate Annual Examination, Part‑11 on the ground that as per rules since she did not appear in the Annual Examination Part‑II, 1997, she had to appear in all the subjects of Part‑t and Part‑II. The petitioner has challenged the refusal of the Board to permit her to appear in the Examination of Part‑II.

2. The parawise comments submitted by the respondent‑Board are to the effect that in terms of Notification No. 10 of 1995, there is no concept of supplementary examination in Part‑I; that the final result has to be tabulated at the final stage i.e. when a candidate appears in Part‑II of the Intermediate Examination; that a candidate who fails in two subjects can be allowed to appear alongwith Part‑II Examination; that since petitioner did not appear in a single paper in Part‑II of the Intermediate Examination, she had failed and, therefore, she has to appear in all the subjects of Part‑I and Part‑II.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition has made following submissions:‑‑ (i) that petitioner could not appear in Part‑II of Intermediate Examination on account of sickness. Petitioner's affidavit and her father's affidavit have been appended with the petition and there is no counter‑affidavit to that; (ii) that in the result card of Part‑I Examination there is a clear stipulation that the result was being announced conditionally and Condition No.2 stipulated as under:‑‑ (iii) that in terms of the afore‑referred condition, petitioner did appear in the subject of Economic in which she had failed in Part‑I but could not appear in Part‑II on account of serious sickness. Therefore, she cannot be penalized for that; (iv) that the rules which mandate that the petitioner had to appear in all the subjects of Part‑I notwithstanding the fact that she had cleared it, is unjust and arbitrary.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore on the other hand, defended the action of the Board by referring to Notification No.10 of 1995 issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and Notification No. 14 of 1997 raising serious objections to the maintainability of this petition. According to learned counsel, the petitioner was estopped by her own act and conduct to file this petition as she had herself filed the admission forms for appearance in Part‑11 Intermediate Examination; that the Calender of the Board cannot be changed through a verdict of the Court and that the Board has not violated any rule which could warrant issuance of a writ. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied on 1995 CLC 1152; AIR (1984) 4 Supreme Court Cases 27; All England Law Reports 1966 page 338; All England Law Reports 1976 page 665 and All England Law Reports 1950 page 741.

5. To better appreciate the questions mooted in this petition, it is necessary to refer to some provisions of the Notifications which have relevance. Notification No. 10 of 1995 was issued on 5th of October, 1995. It stipulates as under:‑‑ The implementation of the afore‑referred Notification led to certain confusion and a special committee was constituted by the Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore which was called, "Ibham committee'' a committee to clarify the ambiguities. Therefore, Notification No. 14 of 1997 was issued by the Board. Some paras. of this Notification read as under:‑‑

6. A careful reading of the notifications would indicate that these were issued with the following intent:‑‑ (i) That there shall be no supplementary examination for Intermediate Part‑II; (ii) that all those who appear in Part‑I Intermediate Examination would be promoted (para. 6); (iii) that to pass supplementary Part‑1, a candidate must obtain 33 % marks in each paper and at least 300 marks in total. The candidate would be allowed to appear in failing subjects alongwith Part‑II Intermediate Examination. A candidate who gets less than 300 marks in Intermediate Part‑I shall have to appear in all papers of Paper‑I and Part‑II. (para. 7); (iv) only that candidate would be allowed to appear in compartment examination who does not fail in more than two subjects otherwise he/she will have to appear in all subjects of Part‑I and Part‑II (para. 21); (v) If a candidate passes Part‑I Examination, but does not appear in Part‑II, his/her result in Part‑I shall be kept reserved for two years and thereafter, it shall be deemed to have been cancelled.

7. In Notification No. 10 of 1997 paras.7, 25, 27 and 28 are also relevant for the present case but are primarily clarification of earlier Notification. Petitioner had cleared all the subjects of Intermediate Examination except that of "Economics". She was promoted and in terms of paras. 7 and 21, she filed admission forms to appear in the failing subject of Part‑I and in all subjects of Part‑II. She did appear in the subject of Economics Part‑I but according to her, she could not appear in Part‑II Examination as she fell sick. (She cleared Economics). In support of her, sickness, she has filed an affidavit which has' not been. controverted by a counter‑affidavit.' It was on account of this that she was allowed' by this Court to appear in Part‑II. Petitioner's case would be covered by para. 23 which stipulates that if a candidate passes Part‑I but does not appear in Part‑II Examination, his result in Part‑I shall remain intact for a period of two years. This provision appears to have been added for those candidates who for one reason or the other are unable to appear may not be deprived of their success in Part‑I Examination. But this benefit is available for two years only and petitioner did appear within the stipulated period of two years. She therefore, could not be denied the right to appear in Part‑II Intermediate Examination.

8. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and respondent Board is directed to issue result card of both Part‑I and Part‑II Examinations. As the interpretation of notification in question entailed some difficulty, there shall be no order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./S‑316/L Petition allowed.