Find a Lawyer

NELOFER SAMEERA JAMSHAID QURESHI versus BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, LAHORE, THROUGH CHAIRMAN

R 5 9 & Proviso Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 Intra Court Appeal Answer Book, dissatisfied with the result of loss of candidate, re-examined his paper but was told that his reply book was lost. The Board has given two options: The candidate has to either accept the numbers given earlier or the candidate has to reappear in the paper that the other papers will be disappearing, depending on the marks obtained. In paper reviews it will be awarded the average number. , It was discretionary to present candidates either to appear in the missing papers or to accept the marks of support, and was the supervisor of the Cynic Board record, and in the event of losing a candidate's response book, the responsibility was placed on the board, This cannot be attributed to anyone. For the loss of negligence of the Board, it was the basic right of the candidate to appear in the examination, which resulted in the correct diagnosis and announcement of the result. It was the responsibility of the board to keep the answer books safe and sound, to lose the answer book through sheer negligence of the board for re-examination should not work negatively with any candidate, the full potential of the marks obtained in other papers. Judgment can be made, it is hurtful to the candidates. And negated the meritocracy policy and the Fearn Board could not punish any candidate for their own employee's mistake. The High Court deferred the single judge's decision, and directed the board to issue a revised certificate to the candidate after the approval of the average, numbers. The same in related articles best advocate from Hyderabad lawyer