' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner secured admission in Government College, Lahore in Pre-Engineering Group in the year 2002. He appeared in Intermediate Part-I Examination held by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore in the year 2003 as a regular student under Roll No.109371. The petitioner passed the same by securing 339 marks out of 550 marks. The respondents sent the admission form of the petitioner to respondent No.2 for appearing in Intermediate Part-II Examination scheduled to be held in May, 2004. The respondent/Board issued the Roll Number Slip 10421 to appear in the said examination.
The petitioner appeared in the said examination and the petitioner's result was announced by the respondent/Board. The petitioner passed the same by securing 601 marks as is evident from the Gazette issued by the respondent/Board, which is attached as Annexure-B. The respondent/Board failed to issue the result card to the petitioner on the intimation of respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 that the petitioner's lectures are 47% instead of 75 % which the requirement of the rules and regulations of the respondent No.2. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this Constitutional petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared in examination in question and passed the same as is evident from Gazette Notification issued by the respondents; therefore, respondents have no lawful authority to withhold the result card of the petitioner on the intimation of respondent No.1, to respondent No.2 that the petitioner has not secured requisite lectures in terms of the rules and regulations of respondent No.2 and the principle of locus poenetentiae is attracted in all respects; therefore, action of the respondents is without lawful authority. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-- ' Mst. Asma Nadeem v. International University (2002 MLD 290).
' Mst. Aisha Maryam v. Chairman Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (2005 MLD 71).
' Miss Aalia v. Chairman Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (2003 MLD 1314).
' Mrs. Kalsoom Ara v. Controller of Examination, University of Punjab (PLD 1995 Lahore 520).
' Iqtidar Karamat Cheema v. University of Punjab (2000 CLC 1589).
3. The learned Law Officer submits that respondent No.1 has sent admission form of the petitioner provisionally much before the examination to be held by respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 notified the petitioner that lectures of the petitioner are short but the petitioner did not make the deficiency within the prescribed period in terms of notice issued by the college authorities. He further urges that the petitioner is not legible to appear in the examination in-question; therefore, action of the respondents is valid and the same is in accordance with law.
4. The learned counsel of the respondent/Board submits that matter is sub judice before the Board.
The Board has appointed Inquiry Officer to probe into the matter relating to the appearance of the petitioner in the examination, which is under process, therefore, Constitutional petition is pre mature. Ile further submits that respondent/Board has withheld the result card of the petitioner, which is in consonance with the law laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contention, he relied upon Bakhtiar Mahmud Kasuri v. Principal Law College and others (NLR 1980 Civil 36), unreported judgment passed in I.C.A. No.382 of 1999.
5. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that the petitioner is penalized by the inaction of the respondents and respondents are contributory negligent to allow the petitioner to appear in the examination in question; therefore, action of the respondents is not sustainable in the eye of law on the well-known principle of estoppel and the respondents have no lawful authority to wriggle out from this position by allowing the petitioner to appear in the examination inquestion on the well-known principle of approbate and reprobate.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
7. It is admitted fact that the matter is pending adjudication before respondent No.2; therefore, without adverting to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties, I do not want to interfere in the process initiated by the respondents at this stage, which will prejudice the case of one of the parties. It is admitted fact that the matter is pending adjudication before the respondents for the last one year, which is not in consonance with section 24-A of the General Clauses Act. According to which, it is the duty and obligation of public functionaries to decide the cases of citizens, without fear, favour, nepotism by interpreting the aforesaid provisions of law. The aforesaid principle has also laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "M/s. Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Karachi" (1998 SCMR 2268). It is also settled principle of law that judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution. It is painful to note that respondent No.2 has not decided the matter in- question qua fate of petitioner for the last one year in spite of fact that respondents Nos.1 and 2 have also parental jurisdiction qua candidates, therefore, it is moral and legal duty of the respondents to decide the matter as early as possible. It is also settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in a character. Keeping in view the pendency of the matter before the respondents, I am not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner at this stage, as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Ch. Tanbir Ahmad Siddiky's case" (PLD 1968 SC 185). However, in the interest of justice and fair-play, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of this case, the petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.2 in his office on 16-6-2005 at 11-00 a.m., who is directed to finalize the inquiry/matter within 20 days after receiving the order of this Court and submit his report to the Deputy Registrar Judicial of this Court within the stipulated period. The learned counsel of respondent No.2 is directed to notify the order of this Court to the respondent for necessary action and compliance. Office is also directed to provide one copy of this order to the aforesaid Additional Advocate-General for onward transmission to respondent No.2 for necessary action and compliance.
' With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges.