' Pre-Medical Group of Government Women College, Jhelum. She appeared in Matriculation Annual Examination, 2002, and obtained 723 Marks out of 850 total Marks, securing Grade-A. On receipt of result card containing detailed Marks, wherein her total marks in Urdu Paper were shown as 58 out of 100 Marks, she moved to the respondent for rechecking of her paper of Urdu subject, with confidence that she having done Urdu Paper excellently, the marks given, must have been out of some error but request of the petitioner for re-checking was refused where upon the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2637 of 2004 which was disposed by this Court on 16-9-2004 with a direction to the respondent to decide the petitioner's application through a speaking order. Respondent in compliance to the order of this Court, again refused re-checking of Urdu Paper of the petitioner vide his order dated 11-10-2004 on the ground that re-checking could only be made/done within 30 days under Regulation No.5. 12 of the Notified Board's Calendar and the petitioner having not approached within that time, she is unable to grant the relief of re-checking. The petitioner aggrieved of the decision of the order of the respondent dated 11-10-2004, filed the instant petition for a direction to the respondent to undertake the exercise of the re-checking.
2. I have minutely considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the Regulation No.5.12 of the Board's Calendar which reads as under:-- "(1) The Chairman or an officer or a committee authorized by him shall on receipt of an application made by a candidate in the prescribed form within 30 days of the declaration of the result and accompanied by the prescribed fee, satisfy that:--
(i) there is no mistake in the grand total on the title page of the answer book in question.
(ii) the totals of various parts of a question have been correctly made at the end of a question.
(iii) all totals have been correctly brought forward on the title page of the answer book;
(iv) no answer or any part, thereof has been left un-marked;
(v) the answer or any part thereof has not been replaced.
(2) in case, any discrepancy is found as a result of re-checking, the result of the candidate shall be revised accordingly with the permission of the Chairman.
(3) No candidate or anybody on his behalf has any right to see or examine the answer book for any purpose.
(4) Applications received after the prescribed time limit shall not be entertained under any circumstances.
(5) A candidate whose result is declared late without any fault on his part, the period of 30 days shall be counted from the date of dispatch of his result card."
3. The above-reproduced regulation/rule clearly depicts that the errors detailed therein could be rectified on approach by the candidate on A application in the prescribed form, within 30 days of the declaration of result. The petitioner's result was undeniably declared in time as noted by the respondent in his impugned order, which was sent to her under registered postal cover on 9-8- 2004. This result card has been annexed with the petition by the petitioner herself, which carries date of issue as 7-8-2004. The petitioner did not move any application within thirty days for rechecking of her Urdu Answer Book, after deposit of requisite fee without which exercise could not have been done. Earlier order by this Court was passed on 16-9-2004 whereafter the petitioner filed her application before the respondent on 28-9-2004 and it being beyond 30 days from the date of declaration of result, could not have been processed by the respondent. Calendar of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education has the force of law and time limit fixed by it, cannot be extended by the functionary thereunder.
4. Controversy regarding extension of time fixed by some statute became subject of scrutiny of this Court many times and it was held that it cannot be extended, on any ground whatsoever. Section 24(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 fixed a period of 30 days for deposit of 1/3rd amount of the sale price and the matter regarding its extension was considered in the cases of Muhammad Ismail v. Jamil-ur-Rehman and 6 others (1995 MLD 1011), Mst. Wafa Jan v. Mahram Zad (1995 CLC 2002), Haji Abdul Qadir v. Zafar Shaheen (PLD 1997 Lahore 549) and 2001 CLR 1958 in each of those judgments, it was held that time fixed by law cannot be extended beyond those limits.
5. For the reasons noted above, respondent correctly refused to accede to the prayer of the petitioner, as she had not filed any application within 30 days .Of declaration of her result. The order passed by the respondent could not be shown to be perverse/arbitrary/fanciful and at the same time, it could not be demonstrated to be illegal, hence this petition has no merit in it and is accordingly dismissed in limine.