' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.---Brief facts of the case are that petitioner appeared in annual examination, 2007 of pre-medical F.Sc. Part-II held by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Dera Ghazi Khan. He appeared in all the papers excepL English Part-II. He was required to re-appear in the said absented subject. He re-appeared in supplementary examination, 2007 for English Part-II and obtained 34 out of 100 marks. Thereafter in annual, 2008 in order to improve his marks he appeared in English Part-I, Part-II and Pak Studies. His result was declared on 15-8-2008.
Feeling dissatisfied with the result card issued he filed an application for rechecking of his papers.
On rechecking of the papers it was found that his marks in English Part-II are 54 instead 55, recorded. Thus one mark was reduced in the total. I have seen the result card issued, which indicates that against English Part-I and Part-II marks are mentioned as 55 and 55 for both and total is 91, which is ridiculous. The total marks obtained calculated on the basis of total marks in each subject, if calculated comes to 640 whereas result card shows the same as 659. Certainly there was a total negligence on the part of the Board to have issued such a defective result card.
Facing the situation meted out to the petitioner in this result he felt dissatisfied with his result of the examination taken by him in annual 2007 and sought re-checking of his papers of Islamic Education, Physics Part-II, Chemistry Part-II and Biology-II. He also deposited necessary fees but rechecking was not allowed on the pretext that according to Rule 19 prescribed period for such an application was 40 days for the filing of application for rechecking whereas according to amended Rule 11 of Chapter-5 the prescribed period is 15 days after the declaration of result.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was satisfied with his earlier result but when he came across the result issued to him for the examination annual, 2008 which was a shock to the petitioner. He entertained a genuine apprehension in his mind that there was every possibility that his earlier result card was also erroneously prepared, therefore, it necessarily required rechecking.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Board has submitted with reference to the above quoted rules that request of the petitioner is barred by time, therefore, cannot be entertained.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and examined the record.
5. Undoubtedly the two rules referred to above do provide limitation for entertaining an application for rechecking the papers. These rules in ordinary course cannot be bypassed. However, peculiar circumstances of this case i,e, glaring mistakes in the result issued by the Board for annual examination 2008 would definitely raise serious apprehension in the mind of a student with regard to his pervious result. Therefore, he immediately moved an application for rechecking of his papers of annual, 2007. As observed above the result card prepared for the examination annual, 2008 is sufficient to raise genuine apprehension in the mind of a child/student. Therefore, in such circumstances the limitation of time frame prescribed by the rules cannot be adhered to strictly.
Resultantly this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to recheck the papers as mentioned above. However, this finding is limited to the extent of this case on account of peculiar circumstances of the case otherwise the rules cannot be bypassed in the ordinary course.