BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, LAHORE vs ALA UD
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Controller of Examinations, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, which quashed the respondent's Intermediate Examination results due to an alleged shortage of lectures. The respondent had initially passed all subjects except Geography, for which he was placed in compartment, and was subsequently permitted by the petitioner to sit for the supplementary examination. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could unilaterally cancel the respondent's examination results after allowing him to sit for the examination, without providing him an opportunity to be heard, on the grounds of lecture shortage. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that it is unjust to cancel a candidate's results after they have been permitted to sit for and pass an examination, particularly when the responsibility for verifying eligibility lies with the educational authorities. The court affirmed that the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to show cause, must be observed even if the relevant rules do not explicitly mandate notice before such adverse administrative action.
- Does the failure of educational authorities to verify lecture attendance before permitting a student to sit for an examination preclude them from later cancelling the results?
- Is an administrative order quashing an examination result valid if issued without providing the affected student an opportunity to show cause?
- Do the principles of natural justice apply to administrative actions even when the relevant rules are silent on the requirement of notice?
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J: This leave petition is directed against an order of the Controller of Examinations, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, quashing the result of the respondent's annual Intermediate Examination held in 1965.
2. It appears that the said respondent had sat for tile examination and passed in all the papers except Geography in which he was placed in compartment. A provisional certificate; was issued by the Principal of the Government Intermediate College for Boys, Wahdat Road, wherefrom the respondent sat for the Examination in which it was stated that the respondent lia6 been placed in compartment in Geography in his Annual Intermediate examination held in 1965. On the basis of this certificate the respondent obtained admission in the 3rd Year Class in Islamic College, Civil Lines, Lahore. He applied for permission to sit for the Supplementary Examination in Geograpy and he was allotted Roll No. 2074 by the petitioner. Accordingly the respondent No. 1 sat for the examination but in course of the examination he was served with the impugned order of the Controller of Examinations, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore. The impugned order reads as follows :-- "Ref : Your admission form for Supplementary Intermediate Examination, 1965.
3. You are hereby informed that you were not eligible to appear in the Annual Examination, 1965, due to shortage of lectures as intimated by your Principal. Your result for the Annual Examination 1965 has, therefore, been quashed.
4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 having failed to attend the requisite number of lectures, he was not eligible to appear at the aforesaid Annual Examination held in 1965. If that was so, it was entirely the responsibility of the College authorities and the petitioner to have satisfied themselves first before permitting respondent No. 1 to appear at the said examination. It is indeed undesirable and against all cannons of justice that the respondent having beers permitted to sit for the examination and having passed the examination, his result was sought to be cancelled oil the ground that he had not attended the requisite number of lectures. It does not appear that respondent No. 1 was given any opportunity to show cause before issuing the impugned order. The mere fact that no such notice was prescribed in the relevant rules does not preclude the necessity of following tile principles of natural justice.
5. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court. The petition i9 accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 5 cases
- AHMAD SUFYAN ARSHAD Versus BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, FAISALABAD 2001 CLC 759
- SHAHZADA SALEEM vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE , . 2000 PLC (C.S.) 691
- HASSAN ARBA KHAN vs PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE, LAHORE and others 1996 CLC 1734
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs AMANAT ALI 1981 PLD Supreme Court 215
- PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND ANOTHER vs AMANAT ALI 1973 PLC 264