MUHAMMAD NAVEED MALIK Versus B.I.S.E.

ORDER

1. The petitioner earlier filed.W.P. 11585/1992 which was withdrawn on the 5th of December, 1992 so as to approach the respondent Board for the redressal of the grievance. It is stated that the petitioner took Intermediate Examination in the year 1992 under Roll No.57166. He passed all the subjects except English in which he secured. 54 marks out of 200; that he was given 33 marks in English Paper-A and 21 marks in English Paper-B and failed only by 12 marks. It is petitioner's case that he was sure of securing more than 50% marks in English Paper-B which, according to him had been changed by the official of the Board.

2. Grievance is voiced that after the withdrawal of his earlier writ petition he approached the respondent and submitted an application. Certain officials from the respondent side got two pages written from him to compare his handwriting but so far he has not been intimated the outcome of his grievance. It has further been argued that the petitioner shall be given 12 marks under rule 12 of the Board Rules.

3. I have considered the contentions. The concessional marks provided under rule 12 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner wherein maximum 11 marks can be granted. Rule 12 is provided as under:

12. A candidate who fails to qualify for the grant of the Intermediate Certificate for want of not more than 1% of the total number of marks allotted to the relevant Group, shall be given the benefit of requisite number of marks in the subject/papers in which he has failed so as to enable him just to qualify for the grant of the certificate; provided that these marks shall not be physically added to the marks obtained by the candidate in the said subjects/papers, or the aggregate, but the marks actually obtained by him in these subjects/papers will be included in the aggregate, and a note to this effect will be given in the certificate."

4. The reading of this rule shows that maximum 11 marks can be given under this rule while the petitioner needs 12 marks. As such the petitioner's case does not fall under the concessional marks as provided under rule 12 of the Board of Calendar. The other argument that the petitioner's paper has been changed, this Court cannot in the exercise of its jurisdiction entertain this plea at this juncture because the same, according to the petitioner, is still pending before the respondent. Resultantly, I find no force in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine.

5. A.A./M-1763/L ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.