' AJMAL MIAN, J.-The petitioner through petition has prayed for the following reliefs:
(i) That it be declared that the action of the respondents rejecting the form of admission in the Board examination of the petitioner as communicated to her on 24-3-1984 is without lawful authority, illegal and void being against the constitutional provisions and law.
(ii) That it be declared that the petitioner is entitled to appear in the ensuing examination and to be treated at par according to law with those students who are of the same or similar age and whose forms have been accepted and appearing in the examination on the basis of discrimination of regular and private students created for the purpose of depriving the petitioner for the benefits and advantages thereof.
(iii) That the respondents may please be graciously directed to allow the petitioner to the examination and confer all the rights and privileges of the regular students without any unlawful discrimination between them except permissible according to law.
(iv) That the costs of this petition may be awarded to the petitioner.
(v) Any other relief under the above circumstances admissible to the petitioner.
2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner filed the form for admission to the examination of Classes IX and X which was to be held from 25-3-1984 through the Head Mistress, Government (Prow) Fatima Jinnah Girls High School Tando Adam within the prescribed period and also paid the requisite examination fee. The above form was duly recommended by the Head Mistress to respondent No.1. However, when on 20-3-1984 the petitioner went to collect her admission card of the examination hall, from the school, she was informed that her form had been rejected by the respondents on the ground of her age being less than 14 years on the date of filing of the application form, and therefore she was not qualified to appear in the examination of 1983-1984. It further seems that the petitioner made various representations to the respondents but with no result. Therefore, she has filed the present petition through her mother and guardian.
3. When this case had come up for hearing before this Division Bench on 1-4-1984 in connection with the hearing of stay application, we had directed the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to produce the relevant rule under which the embargo on the age of 14 years was imposed.
Respondent No.1 has filed a Notification No. B I S E /Conduct/ SSC -80-2309, dated 16th November, 1980 notifying the date of examination of IX and X Classes and the amount of fee payable by the candidates. However, on the back of this notification 11 instructions are contained. It may be advantageous to reproduce para. 11 of the above instructions, which reads as follows:- " It has been decided that private candidates may be allowed to take Secondary School Certificate Examination by appearing in all the papers of both parts i.e. IX and X Classes provided that the candidates must complete their age of 16 years on or before 15th March, 1981. The candidates below the age of 16 years shall not be allowed to appear in both parts taken together."
4. Mr. Khamisani, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has candidly submitted that under para. 21 (II) of the Calendar of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad 1970-71 which A has reproduced the West Pakistan Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad Ordinance, 1961, the power has been given to the Board to frame rules consistent with the provisions of the Ordinance and the regulations for providing conditions of admission of candidates to the examination and eligibility for diplomas, certificates and titles. He has also invited our attention to the rules framed in pursuance of the above para. 21(I1) but has fairly conceded that there is no rule providing the age limits for the private candidates. It may be pertinent to observe that there is no age limit for the regular students for appearing in IX and X Classes. In this view of the matter, above quoted para. 11 of the instructions contained on the back side of the aforesaid notification, dated 16th November, 1980 for fixing the dates for examination cannot be equated with a statutory rule and, therefore, above restraint on the private students is not warranted by law. We, therefore, allow the petition and declare that the rejection of the petitioner's form on the ground of age is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The respondents are restrained from acting or enforcing the same. Mr. Faizuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner requested that a direction be issued to respondent No.1 to accept the petitioner's examination form for the supplementary examination, which was submitted by her. Mr. Khamisani, counsel for the respondent No.1 states that factually respondent No. 1 has already accepted the petitioner's form for the supplementary examination. In view of the above statement, there is no need for passing any order on the request made by Mr. Faizuddin. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no orders as to costs.
Writ issued.