1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J: This leave petition is directed against an order of the Controller of Examinations, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, quashing the result of the respondent's annual Intermediate Examination held in 1965.
2. It appears that the said respondent had sat for tile examination and passed in all the papers except Geography in which he was placed in compartment. A provisional certificate; was issued by the Principal of the Government Intermediate College for Boys, Wahdat Road, wherefrom the respondent sat for the Examination in which it was stated that the respondent lia6 been placed in compartment in Geography in his Annual Intermediate examination held in 1965. On the basis of this certificate the respondent obtained admission in the 3rd Year Class in Islamic College, Civil Lines, Lahore. He applied for permission to sit for the Supplementary Examination in Geograpy and he was allotted Roll No. 2074 by the petitioner. Accordingly the respondent No. 1 sat for the examination but in course of the examination he was served with the impugned order of the Controller of Examinations, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore. The impugned order reads as follows :-- "Ref : Your admission form for Supplementary Intermediate Examination, 1965.
3. You are hereby informed that you were not eligible to appear in the Annual Examination, 1965, due to shortage of lectures as intimated by your Principal. Your result for the Annual Examination 1965 has, therefore, been quashed.
4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 having failed to attend the requisite number of lectures, he was not eligible to appear at the aforesaid Annual Examination held in 1965. If that was so, it was entirely the responsibility of the College authorities and the petitioner to have satisfied themselves first before permitting respondent No. 1 to appear at the said examination. It is indeed undesirable and against all cannons of justice that the respondent having beers permitted to sit for the examination and having passed the examination, his result was sought to be cancelled oil the ground that he had not attended the requisite number of lectures. It does not appear that respondent No. 1 was given any opportunity to show cause before issuing the impugned order. The mere fact that no such notice was prescribed in the relevant rules does not preclude the necessity of following tile principles of natural justice.
5. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court. The petition i9 accordingly dismissed.