The brief facts given in the instant writ petition are that the petitioner is a minor and a young boy, he has been a regular student of Pakistan Railway High School, Sama Satta and has always remained present and have been paying his dues and has passed his examinations. He even cleared the preliminary tests for the Matriculation Examination; his attendance for the purpose of admission was complete, therefore, he filled the form, deposited the fee and the roll number slip was issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Bahawalpur (hereinafter called the "Board") being 18194. The Headmaster of the school (respondent No. 1) received the roll number slip due to the misfortune of the petitioner-candidate, he had a sudden attack of jaundice on 30- 12-1995 till 31-1-1996 he was bed-ridden. The Medical Certificate is annexed with the instant writ petition. He gave an application to the Headmaster of the School. When he reappeared in the school he came to know that his name was struck from the roll of the candidates. The Headmaster refused his roll number slip and the petitioner became desperate therefore, he filed the instant writ petition. According to the petitioner, the action taken by the Headmaster was entirely without lawful jurisdiction and therefore, was liable to be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction.
2. This Court vide order dated 7-3-1996 allowed the petitioner to implead the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Bahawalpur as respondent No.2 by inserting the same in learned counsel for the petitioner's hand. A direction was given to the respondent No.2 to issue roll number provisionally to the writ petitioner so as to enable him to take examination being held on 9-3-1996.
The final result was kept subject to the result of the instant writ petition.
3. The Headmaster, present in Court, submits that he allowed admission form of the petitioner for the purpose of sitting in the Matriculation Examination on 24-12-1995. On Court's query he admitted that at that time out of 360 attendances the petitioner's attendances in the school register were 175 which is 48 % of the total. He allowed admission form for the reason that the petitioner will fulfil 75 % of the attendance up to 14 days prior to the holding of the examination. According to him the examination took place on 7-3-1996. He also admitted that he received an application on behalf.
Of the father of the petitioner that the petitioner was seriously ill and cannot move. This application was given on 9-12-1995 but the petitioner remained absent till 16-1-1996.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board vehemently opposed the instant writ petition.
He has submitted that according to rule 4(3) & (4) of the Rules for the Secondary School Examination the petitioner was short of the prescribed percentage of attendance at the time of admission form as he could not make up shortage in due course of time and as such the head of the institution has rightly struck his name from the roll of the candidates. He also referred sub-rule
(4) which provides that if the candidate is not short of the prescribed percentage of attendance at the time of submission of admission form and fees to the Board but subsequently falls short of such percentage, the Head of the institution shall withdraw his/her candidature by writing to the Controller of Examinations not later than the 7th day before the commencement of the examination.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record. The petitioner is a young boy of 14/15 years, according to his contention he has passed the Matriculation Examination and as the result is subject to the decision of the instant writ petition, therefore, now he cannot get admission in any College. He seems to be a boy of an ordinary labourer in the Loco Shed of Sama Satta Tehsil, Bahawalpur. I have also perused the record brought by the Board representative: At the time of submission of the admission form it does not show any word "PROVISIONALLY". It shows that the percentage of attendance at the time of submission of admission form per rule 4(3) is complete. If any one from the perusal of the same comes to the impression that this admission form was sent after being satisfied that the percentage of attendance was satisfactory, the roll number slip was issued to the Headmaster which remained in his custody till 7-3-1996 and before that the instant writ petition was filed and this Court had directed personal attendance of the Headmaster. Before 7-3-1996, the name of the petitioner was struck after receipt of the application of his serious illness on 9-10-1995, and the name of the petitioner was struck from the roll of the candidates on 16-1-1996, for the Matriculation Examination. It is really surprising that after striking the name of the petitioner from the roll of candidates/students of the school why the headmaster being the head of the institution did not move to withdraw his candidature in writing to- the Controller of Examination while the rule provided that he shall do so not later than 7th day before the commencement of the examination.
Why he kept the roll number slip in his possession and deposited the same during the pendency of the instant writ petition with the Board. He has admitted in the Court that he never initiated any proceedings of withdrawal of admission of the petitioner. The respondent-headmaster being the head of the institution is bound under the law to safeguard the interest of the students in the institution. It cannot be presumed that he would be so negligent and commit gross illegality which will result into miscarriage of justice to other side. In a country where literacy rate is poor the doors of knowledge should never be closed and equity and social justice must travel hand in hand. Once the matter that the petitioner was seriously ill came to the knowledge of the headmaster of the institution he could not strike his name from the roll of the candidates as there was no deliberate negligence on the part of the petitioner and if at all he was of the view that the percentage of the attendance was short then according to the rules he should have moved to the Board for withdrawal of the admission form. If he was convinced from the very beginning that the attendance of the petitioner was short why he omit to write the word "PROVISIONALLY" on the admission form submitted by him. It is a case of clear mala fide and requires interference by this Court. Therefore, the action taken by the headmaster by srtiking of the name of the petitioner and non-handing over the roll number to the petitioner is declared to be without lawful authority, and jurisdiction. The Board-respondent No.2 is directed to publish the result of the petitioner who can apply for his admission to any college of his choice.
6. There shall be no order as to costs