ZAKI-UD-DIN PAL, J.--The petitioner was a student of 10th Class in the Government Girls Pilot Secondary School, Sahiwal in the year 1966-67. On 13-12-1966 she submitted her application form for permission to the examination (Copy Annex R/1), which was received In the office of the Controller of Examinations on the next day i,e, 14-12-1966 (see Annex R/2). It appears that thereafter the roll numbers of the various candidates were received by the Headmistress which she distributed amongst them but the roll number of the petitioner was not delivered to her. On 11-3- 1967, the Headmistress informed the Controller of Examinations that the petitioner had not made good deficiency of attendance and therefore, her name was being withdrawn by her. This information was received by the Office of the Controller on 13-3-1967, whereafter he issued a direction cancelling the condidature of the petitioner (see Annexs R/3 and R/4). On 24-3-1967 the Headmistress sent a telegram cancelling withdrawal and requesting for issuance of the roll number to the petitioner provisionally (see Annex R/5). On this an order was passed by the office vide Annex R/5, directing that roll number may be issued subject to confirmation of eligibility on demand of relevant record (see Annex R/6). This order was implemented by issuing a necessary telegram to the centre concerned that the petitioner (whose roll number was 36323) may be allowed to appear in the examination provisionally. A similar intimation by another telegram vide Annex R/7 was sent to the Headmistress ; the lower portion of which reads as follows :- "Copy by post in confirmation with the remarks that Roll No, 36323 has been allowed to take the examination provisionally pending decision of her eligibility case. Kindly send the relevant attendance registers for verification and to decide her eligibility case."
To the similar strain, was a regular letter issued on the same date, namely, 25-3-1967, which reads as follows:--"To The Headmistress, Government Girls Pilot Secondary School, Sahiwal.
Ref: Your Telegram dated 25-3-1967. Madam, I am sending herewith Roll No, slip of Miss Firdous Fatima (Roll No, 36323) a candidate of your School for the Secondary School Annual Examination, 1967, as requested by you in your telegram referred to above. The candidate has been allowed to take the examination provisionally pending decision of her eligibility case. You are, therefore, requested kindly to send the attendance register of your School of IX and X Classes under registered-cover containing the attendances of this candidate to enable us to check up her eligibility for the examination. This may be treated as most urgent. Yours obediently, (Sd.)
Encl. Roll No, slip. Assistant Controller of Examinations II for Controller."
2. It appears that the petitioner took up the examination under the aforesaid roll number. The result of the examination was published on 22-7-1967.
3. Thereafter, it appears that the case of the petitioner was finalised on 19-9.1967 (see Annex "C" with the writ petition) and it was decided that the provisional permission granted to her be cancelled. Annexs R/9, R/10 and R/11 are statements of the attendance of lectures by the petitioner which have been filed by the respondents in this case in support of their stand to show that the petitioner was actullay short by fifty lectures on the whole. On coming to know of the decision contained in Annex "C" (which it is contended was communicated to the petitioner on 29-9-67 on her application Annex "B"). She filed a representation before respondent No,
1. The said representation was rejected on 8-1-1968 (see Annex "E"). In the said communication it was indicated that if the petitioner considered that the relevant record in connection with her attendance had been tampered with, then she could lodge a complaint with the Inspectress of Schools who was proper authority to deal with such a case. It is contended that the petitioner did file a complaint on 11-6-1968 but without any success as she was informed by means of a letter dated 11-6-1968 on 18.7-1968 that the Board has already rejected her plea. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on 5-12-1968 against the aforesaid proceedings and orders of the various respondents herein.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing has contended that under rules 1 and 2 of Chapter XII regarding withdrawal of Admission Forms and under rule 1 of Chapter XV (Board Calendar) regarding condoning of deficiency in attendance, the name of the candidate who does not make up deficiency in lectures may be withdrawn up to 14th day before the commencement of the examination and the head of the institution shall take the decision about condonation of deficiency at least fourteen days before the commencement of the examination, after which no decision in this respect shall be valid. The learned counsel has vehemently argued that the headmistress of the school was competent to decide the case of the petitioner about the condonation of deficiency in lectures at least 14 days before the commencement of the examination and since she failed to do so, therefore, her decision was not valid and the petitioner's candidature could not be withdrawn from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore. He has further contended that the representation of the petitioner (Annex "D') submitted to respondent No, 1 on 16-12-1967 could not be summarily rejected. The Chairman should have inquired into the allegations made in the representation for the purpose of determining the factors and circumstances which were responsible for her deficiency in lectures. The petitioner had alleged in the said representation that the shortage in her attendances was forged and that was done at the instance of one of the teachers of the school who was inimical to her. She had further alleged that she was never charged any fine for the alleged shortage of lectures and if there had been any shortage, then corresponding fine should have been realised from her.
5. The learned counsel in this regard relied upon Regulation 10 of the General Regulations, Chapter 1V of the Board Calendar which is as follows:- "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the regulations and rules if, in the opinion of the Chairman, there is a case of real hardship due to causes beyond the control of a student or a candidate for an examination of the Board, the Chairman may pass such orders as he may deem necessary to relieve that hardship. The orders of the Chairman, passed under this regulation, shall be reported to the Board for information : Provided that such orders of the Chairman shall not alter the award of remarks, obtained by a candidate or his result, determined on the basis of that award."
He has submitted that the case of the petitioner was that of real hardship as explained in her representation and the Chairman was fully competent under this provision to enquire into the matter and if satisfied to relieve that hardship. According to him the Chairman has failed to exercise the powers vested in him by refusing to hold an inquiry into the allegations as contained in the said representation for the purpose of determining whether there was any genuine deficiency in the lectures or not.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos, 1 and 2 while replying to the arguments of petitioner's counsel has submitted : --
(a) That the Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, has no administrative control over the educational institutions and as such under Regulation 10 as mentioned above, he is not competent to inquire into the allegations of forging shortage of lectures and tampering with the attendance registers.
(b)The petitioner's lectures were short at the time of submission of her admission form, therefore, the headmistress sent her form provisionally under rule 2 (Explanation C) of Chapter I, page 11 of the Board Calendar.
(c)That under the said rule 2, Secondary School Certificate examination is open to all students who can produce the certificate duly signed by the head of the institution of having completed the required percentage of attendences. In the case of those who fail to do so at the time of the submission of admission forms their forms are sent provisionally to the Controller of Examinations.
It is for the head of the institution to condone or not to condone the deficiency in the lectures. His orders in this respect cannot be challenged by way of appeal.
(d)In the present case the provision as contained in rule 3, Chapter XV, page 191 of the Board Calendar has been complied with by respondents Nos, 1 and 2. The Controller of Examinations was intimated by the headmistress that the petitioner could not make up the deficiency in lectures and the said deficiency had not been condoned. The provisional permission to appear in the examination was, therefore, cancelled.
(e) Under rule 3 of Chapter I, page 113 a candidate whose deficiency is not condoned by the head of the institution under the authority vested in him by the rules shall not be Permitted to appear in the annual examination but shall be permitted to appear in the supplementary examination provided he makes up the deficiency before the supplementary examination.
7. It is admitted that the Assistant Controller of Examinations for Controller of Examinations of the Board sent an intimation to the headmistress in reply to her telegram and asked her to send the relevant attendance registers for verification and decision of petitioner's eligibility case. Then by another letter dated 25-3-1967 which is at page 7 of the relevant file of the board, Assistant Controller of Examinations for the Controller again requested the headmistress to send the attendance registers of her school for 9th and 10th classes containing the attendances of the petitioner in order to enable the board to check up her eligibility for the examination. It appears that the Chairman just inspected the registers in order to find out as to whether the petitioner was short of lectures or not. He did not go deep into the matter and try to find out whether according to the allegations there was tampering with the attendance registers or the shortage of the petitioner's lectures had been forged. The said registers were sent for to check up petitioner's eligibility for the examination and according to law it meant that her eligibility from all aspects was to be determined. The allegation of the petitioner that the shortage of lectures was forged and the relevant register was tampered with should have been gone into by an enquiry. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the Chairman is not empowered to hold such an inquiry cannot be accepted. The Board itself took the cognizance of the matter but dealt with only one aspect and the other aspect was left to be dealt with by another authority. The eligibility of the petitioner for the examination was to be finally determined by the Board keeping in view the allegations as levelled by the candidate.
8. Attention may be drawn to the provision as contained in Chapter XXIX regarding inspection of institutions etc., at page 23 of the Board Calendar. The Chapter reads as follows :-- "CHAPTER XXXIX--INSPECTION OF INSTITUTIONS AND THE REPORTS, RETURNS AND OTHER INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED BY THEM
9. In, the month of October each year or in such other month as the Board may determine, the Head of every Institution shall submit a report to the Board on a prescribed form showing the changes in the management, changes in the staff and qualifications and grades of pay of new members number and distribution of students, income and expenditure of previous year, results of examination, changes in the scale of fees and of exemptions or reductions permitted, scholarships, condition of library, number of students in Boarding Houses, rules of the Institution, etc.
2. The head of every Institution shall report to the Secretary within a fortnight, for record in the register of students maintained by the Board, withdrawal and transfer of students.
3. The following shall be kept by every recognized Institution and submitted, when required, to an officer appointed by the Chairman (1)A Register of Admissions and withdrawals; (2)A Register of Attendance at Lectures; (3)A Register of Fees ; (4)The Time Table.
4. Inspection of every Institution shall be held from time to time. The inspection may relate to the accommodation, sanitary arrangements and provision made for games, residence, supervision and instruction of students, the library, furniture and apparatus, the registers and the qualifications and duties performed by each member of the staff; but in other respects it shall not refer to the internal management of the Institution which shall be left to the discretion of the responsible authority.
5. The report of such inspection shall be submitted to the Board in the prescribed form."
According to this provision the Board has powers to inspect the register of admissions and withdrawals, register of attendances, fees register and the time table. Inspection of these registers does not mean that they are to be merely seen and signed. The inspecting authority appointed by the Board while inspecting the said registers will have to see as to whether the registers are in order and no irregularity or illegality in respect of admissions withdrawals or attendances has been committed, and if he finds any such thing then it is his duty to report to the Chairman, who will take necessary action against the institution. There are many regulations and rules in the Board Calendar which provide control of the Board over the educational institutions recognized by it, Chapter V (Regulations), Chapter XXIX (Rules) and Chapter XXX (Rules) of the Board Calendar can be mentioned in this respect. Under rule 7 (Chapter V) of the Board Calendar the Board has powers to exclude any person from any examination if it is satisfied that such candidate is not a fit person to appear in it. Then under rule 18 of the said Chapter, the board has powers to quash the result of a candidate after it has been declared, if it is found that he was not eligible to appear in the examination or for any other reason that may be determined by the Board.
9. Conversely it will mean that the Board has power to admit any person to any examination if it is satisfied that such person is fit to appear in the examination and to announce the result of a candidate if it is found that he was eligible to appear in the examination. All this will entail some sort of inquiry from all aspects in order to determine eligibility or exclusion of a candidate from any examination.
10. In view of the above discussion we are of the Opinion that the Chairman has powers to find out in the present case whether the attendance registers in question have been tampered with or the shortage of lectures in question has been forged as alleged by the petitioner. We, therefore, accept the petition and direct respondent No, 1 to find out after inquiry in the presence of the petitioner as to whether her allegations in her representation dated 16-12-1967 (Annex 'D') are correct, and determine her eligibility accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.