BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, RAWALPINDI vs SULEMAN MANSOOR AHMAD
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which allowed a constitutional petition filed by the respondent. The respondent secured 490 marks in the Intermediate Pre-Medical Group Examination and subsequently appeared for improvement of his position in the Pre-Engineering Group Examination. Although he passed, the petitioner Board declared him failed on the ground that relevant rules did not permit a change of group for improvement. The core legal question concerned the interpretation and application of the examination rules regarding the change of groups for the improvement of marks. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that, notwithstanding any potential force in the petitioner's interpretation of the rules, leave to appeal was unwarranted because the educational authorities themselves permitted the respondent to take the examination and contributed to the confusion. The key principle laid down is that where authorities permit a candidate to appear in an examination through their own contributory conduct and confusion, the discretionary relief under constitutional jurisdiction will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.
- Can a candidate appear in an examination for improvement of marks in a group different from their earlier group under the relevant rules?
- Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal when the educational authorities' own conduct contributed to the confusion regarding examination rules?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 26-11-1980 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a Constitutional Petition filed by the respondent was allowed.
2. The respondent having appeared in the Intermediate Pre-Medical Group Examination secured 490 marks. He appeared in another Examination for improving his position but instead of taking the Examination for Pre-Medical Group he appeared in the Pre-Engineering Group Examination.
3. Although he passed in the latter Examination but he was declared as having failed on account of the change of the group because as contended from the petitioner's side, the relevant rules did not permit the change.
4. On filing of the writ petition in the High Court, interim relief was granted to the respondent to the extent that his result might be declared on the basis of which if eligible he might seek admission in the Engineering University; but without prejudice to the petitioners' plea on merits.
5. The contention of the learned counsel, which is based on clause 2.18 of the relevant rules, is that the respondent could not have appeared for improvement of the Division Marks, in the Examination for a group different from his earlier group. The argument in so far as it goes might have some force.
6. But we do not consider it necessary to examine it in any detail. When questioned as to why the authorities concerned permitted the respondent to take the Examination and why he was not prevented from doing so, learned counsel was unable to give any satisfactory reply. In the circumstances of this case, when as it appears from the orders passed-by the High Court, there was some confusion about the application of the Rules to a particular Region and there was also the contributory conduct of the authorities concerned, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
7. This petition accordingly is dismissed.