SOHAIL ASGHAR BHATTI vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE & SECONDARY
The petitioner challenged an order of the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education punishing him for using unfair means during an examination. The High Court declined to interfere in its writ jurisdiction. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the punishment was imposed by an Enquiry Officer who lacked the requisite authority, arguing that under Rule 17 of the relevant examination rules, such decisions are reserved for the Standing Committee, the Chairman, or the Board. The Supreme Court observed that while this point was raised in the writ petition, the High Court's judgment was silent on the matter, implying it was not argued during the hearing. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to specifically challenge the Enquiry Officer's jurisdiction in his initial memorandum of appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the matter was not a fit case for interference and dismissed the petition, establishing that a party cannot raise a jurisdictional objection for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not specifically agitated in the lower forums.
- Can a petitioner raise a jurisdictional objection before the Supreme Court if it was not specifically agitated in the memorandum of appeal or during the High Court proceedings?
- Does the silence of a High Court judgment on a specific ground of a writ petition create a presumption that the point was not urged during the hearing?
- Rule 17, Rules relevant to the conduct of examinations
ORDER
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.--The petitioner was punished by the authorities of the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, for the use of unfair-means in the examination, with which the High Court refused to interfere in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
2. The contention is that the punishment had been awarded by the Enquiry Officer who was not competent to do so as under rule 17 of the Rules relevant to the conduct of examinations, the Standing Committee or, if that Committee is not unanimous, the Chairman himself or the Board, if the matter is referred by the Chairman to it, can take a decision. The point, it appears, had been taken in ground (k) of the grounds in the writ petition but the High Court's judgment is silent about it, giving rise to a presumption that the point had not been urged during the hearing of the writ petition. In any case, we find that the petitioner, though he had in the memorandum of appeal generally questioned the jurisdiction of the Enquiry Officer, had not taken the objection specifically there. It is, therefore, not a fit case for interference by this Court. The petition is dismissed.