' Naseem Riaz, Petitioner herein, is a student of Government College of Technology, Samanabad, Faisalabad. By, the Notification dated 4-9-1991, the annual examination for Diploma of Associate Engineers, 1991 was scheduled to be held with effect from 26th September, 1991. The last date for submission of admission forms and payment of examination fee alongwith late fee was fixed as 15th September, 1991. The candidates were required to send their forms through the institutions where they were studying.
' The petitioner submitted his admission form to the Principal Government College of Technology, Samanabad, Faisalabad and also deposited the requisite examination' fee well within time.
However, as he did not receive the roll number, he made a representation on which he was permitted by Principal to take the examination. As the result of the petitioner .Was not being announced, he has come to this Court by filing this Constitutional petition for issuance of a direction to the respondents to declare his result.
3. The petition has been resisted by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who have stated in their report and parawise comments that as the admission form of the petitioner was not received from the Principal .Before 15th September, 1991, the last date fixed for submission of forms, the petitioner could not have appeared in the examination but he did so without permission of the Board, which is not obliged to declare his result.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that according to the rules applicable, the petitioner was required to submit his form through his college and to deposit the fee with it which he did before the due date and if the form of the petitioner had not been forwarded by the Principal he cannot be penalised for the lapse.
5. The learned Additional Advocate-General, however, relied upon Rule 2 of the. Rules framed by the Punjab Board of Technical Education vide notification dated 30th January, 1989 to contend that as the admission form of the petitioner was not received by the Board before the prescribed date, the petitioner was not eligible to appear in the examination.
6. Rule =2 of the Rules framed by the Board of Technical Education vide Notification dated 30th January, 1989 on which reliance has been placed by the, learned Additional Advocate-General reads as under:- "2. To be eligible to appear in the Diploma of Associate Engineers Examination, a candidate:-
(a) must have been enrolled in a recognized affiliated institution;
(b) must have paid the prescribed registration' fee to the Board by such dates as fixed by the Board;
(c) must have submitted his admission form and the prescribed fee' for' examination through the Head of his Institution by such dates as may be fixed by the Board;
(d) must have been registered with the Board;
(e) must have Milled the requirements of attendance Rules;
(f) must have satisfied the Principal of the Institution where he is enrolled of 'his good conduct; #TBS (g) #TBE must have satisfied the Principal of the Institution where he.Is enrolled about his satisfactory progress in the prescribed courses of study and satisfactory performance at the Internal Tests and Examination:
7. It is an admitted position that according to the above. Rules the petitioner could not have sent his admission form nor deposited the examination fee directly with the respondent. On the other hand the rules insist that the admission 'form must be submitted through the head of the' institution concerned. It is also .To be seen that in the public notice dated 4th September, 1991 whereby the schedule for examination was, announced, it 'was specifically provided that the institutions instead of sending the fee for an individual student should remit the same in lump sum-for 111 the students.
8. It follows from the .Above that 'only obligation cast upon the petitioner was that he should have submitted his admission form and deposited the examination fee within time with the institution in which he was studying. Both these conditions were admittedly fully met with that being so the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for any lapse on the part of the institution which was acting as an agent of the 'respondents.
9. It is to be noted that the institution, in which the petitioner is studying, is being by Government itself under the control of Board of Technical Education, Allama Iqbal Tovvn, Lahore. In this view of the matter also, it is obvious that the Principal was acting on behalf of the Board while receiving fee and the examination forms. It would, therefore, be highly inequitable to hold that the petitioner could not have taken the examination as his form had not been forwarded by respondent No,3.
' In view of what has been stated above, the petition, is allowed an respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner forthwith.
No order as to costs Pitition accepted revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.