Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition No. 311‑R of 1985, decided on 9th ,July, 1986.
(On Appeal from the judgment, dated 6‑4‑1985 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 1523 of 1984)
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Hyderabad Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Rules, R.5‑‑Educational Institution‑‑Admission‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider question whether petitioner could lawfully be refused admission by respondent on ground that he had availed of more than 'one chance' to improve his division.
M.A. Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, A. A. C Punjab and Rao Muhammad Yousuf, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 29th July, 1986.
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 6‑4‑1985 in Writ Petition No. 1523 of 1984.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner appeared in the F.Sc. (Pre‑Medical) Examination from the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Hyderabad, which he passed in 1976 (Supplementary Examination). Being keen to get admission in M.B.,B.S. he appeared again in order to improve his division, but could only secure 498 marks which were not enough. Feeling disheartened he gave up his F.Sc. Certificate and after permission also changed his group from the pre‑medical to the Engineering Group, but he failed. Thereafter, he reverted to his old passion for medicine and sought fresh admission in Class XI (Pre‑Medical) in Government Degree College, Ghotki in the year 1980‑81 and after attending regular classes for two years passed his Class XII examination in the Pre‑Medical Group Annual Examination in 1982, securing 678 Marks. He then applied for admission in M.B.B.S. in King Edward Medical College, Lahore, being in the orbit of selection.
3. He appeared before the Interview Board on 20‑4‑1983 and was told, at the end of the interview, that the intimation regarding his selection /admission or otherwise, would be conveyed to him. No such intimation was, however, conveyed.
4. In the meanwhile, it appears that the Principal, King Edward Medical College, wrote a letter to the Principal, Government College, Ghotki on 27‑9‑1983 seeking a clarification of the factual position with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner "for the appearing in the Intermediate Examination for the 3rd time when the Board do (sic) not/allow". In his reply, dated 5‑10‑1973 the Principal, Government College, Ghotki, informed the Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore, that the information supplied by the petitioner regarding his academic record was correct.
5. The Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore also appears to have addressed letters to the Boards of Secondary Education, Hyderabad and Sukkur, who, in their replies, stated that it was possible for the petitioner to improve his Division.
6. Not withstanding, the petitioner was not granted admission, apparently on the ground that he could improve his Division by availing of "one chance" only.
7. The petitioner on 14‑4‑1984 filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court. On behalf of the respondents reliance was placed on rule 5 of the Hyderabad Board (which is also followed by the Sukkur Board) and provides:‑
"The concession to improve the Division shall be granted once only. In all such cases only one chance will be given for improvement of Division and such chance availed of whether in Part‑I or with part of the given examination will be counted as the chance availed for the purpose of improvement of Division."
The learned Judge of the High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the aforesaid writ petition on 6‑4‑1985 observing:‑
"It is no doubt true that the concerned Board appears to have no objection to a successful or unsuccessful student taking fresh admission and qualifying the F.Sc. Examination afresh. This no objection /permission by the concerned authorities is, however, subject to the afore quoted rule which in categorical terms provides only one chance for improvement of the Division. Petitioner having already taken one chance to improve his Division in 1979 with no better results, he could not claim any benefit of the result of fresh examination which he took in 1982. In any case respondents in view of the afore‑referred rule could lawfully refuse to consider that result as the fresh examination taken by the petitioner clearly amounted to second chance. In this view of, the matter respondents cannot be said to have acted without lawful authority in refusing admission to the petitioner."
8. Hence, this petition for leave.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition submitted, inter alia, that the petitioner did not clear the F.Sc. (Medical Group) on 2nd or 3rd "chance" because he totally gave up his previous certificate (obtained in 1979) and took fresh admission in 1981, again in Class XI and after attending regular classes for two years again appeared in F.Sc. Final in 1982 and secured 678 marks which brought him in the orbit of selection. He further submitted that by taking admission in Class XI again, studying for two years and then appearing in F.Sc. Final shows that he was not availing a fresh "chance" but that this was a totally fresh attempt, which was permitted by the relevant rules. In this connection, he relied upon the Notification, dated 19‑10‑1977 of the Hyderabad Board; which is to the effect:‑
"BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE & SECONDARY EDUCATION, HYDERABAD, SIND.
NO:BISE/HSC/CONDUCT/4841, DATED 19‑10‑1977
NOTIFICATION.
It is notified for information of all concerned that the Board has no objection if any candidate who after having failed/passed the Class XI/XII Examination desires to seek fresh admission in Class XI.
Sd/
CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION"
Read with the notification of the Sukkur Board:‑
"BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION SUKKUR
No.BISE/Cond/Suk. 1787, Dated 23‑10‑1980.
NOTIFICATION
It is notified for information of all concerned that Board has no objection if any candidate who after having failed/passed the Class XI/XII Examination desires to seek fresh admission in Class XI.
(Sd.)
23/10
TAJ MUHAMMAD MEMON
CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION"
and also on the subsequent notification of the Hyderabad Board, dated 9th August, 1983:‑
"BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, HYDERABAD, SIND
No.BISC/HSC/CONDUCT/1631, Hyderabad 9‑8‑1983
NOTIFICATION
It is notified for information of all concerned that the Board has no objection if any candidate who after having failed/passed in Class XI/XII Examination, desires to seek fresh admission in Class XI in any respective recognized College.
This announcement is as per policy of the Board.
Sd.
Controller of Examination"
10. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General, in reply, supported the reasoning of the High Court and submitted that no ground for interference existed.
11. The question, however, whether the petitioner could lawfully be refused admission on the ground that he had availed of more than "one chance" to improve his Division in this case requires further consideration.
12. Leave granted.
13. Security Rs.500.
14. The petitioner has also prayed for interim relief.
15. Normally we would not have entertained this request, until the final decision of the appeal, but considering the long and sincere efforts made by the petitioner to secure admission in a Medical College and his passion for higher studies in Medicine, we would grant him interim relief in the terms that he shall be admitted in the First Year of the M.B.B.S. Course in the next academic year (1986‑87), subject, of course, to the final decision of the appeal.
M.Y.H. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer