' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.---The Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another, petitioners, seek leave to appeal against the judgment and order delivered by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby writ petition filed by the respondent No,1 against the refusal of the petitioners to permit her to take secondary examination was accepted.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to the institution of this petition are that respondent No,1 appeared in 1995 Annual Intermediate Examination. The result of the respondent was withheld by petitioner No,2 for want, of verification of Home Economics practical's and her discharge certificate from the concerned school. According to the petitioners both these requisites had not been complied with and therefore with a view to helping the respondent, the petitioner's office itself started communicating with the Principal, Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Muridake, District Sheikupra, but with no success. Eventually the respondent herself approached the aforesaid Principal through a written request on which the principal certified that the respondent had been discharged from the school on 30-6-1994 and that she had completed 75% of the practicals in Home Economics. However, it is further stated by the petitioners that on 26-5-1996 the office of the petitioner received the certificate from the Principal and thereafter the result of the respondent was declared on 1-6-1996 and in the meanwhile supplementary examination for the year 1995 and annual examination for 1996 had come to an end. The respondent had failed in the subject of English and was desiring to take supplementary examination for which she applied on 3-6-1996 to afford her a chance to take the examination in the subject of English in the next ensuing supplementary examination which according to the petitioners, the respondent was not entitled to take and therefore permission was disallowed by the petitioners.
3. Aggrieved by the refusal to grant permission to the respondent, as stated above, the respondent invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court by filing a writ petition, which was accepted and the petitioners were directed to afford an additional opportunity to the respondent to appear in the next intermediate examination. It was also observed by the High Court that the result of the respondent had been declared late without any fault on the part of the respondent and therefore she is entitled to re-appear in the subsequent examination. It was further observed that the application of the respondent to take such examination i.e, the form and fee shall be accepted without imposing late fee as required by the Rules.
4. The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the aforesaid order and it is contended that the view of the matter taken by the High Court is erroneous and contrary to the Rules and Regulations framed by the petitioners to govern such situations. It is submitted that initially and even thereafter it was the bounden duty of the respondent herself to have complied with the requisite formalities with a view to getting her result declared. It is further submitted that in any way under the Rules and Regulations, it was the Obligation of the respondent to take all steps to procure the requisite certificates. It is further submitted that rules 6 and 21 of Chapter 2 of the Calendar of the Board have been misread because the same were not attracted inasmuch as they apply before the commencement of the examination whereas in the present case the result had been declared. It is further submitted that the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court omitted to take into consideration requirements of Rule 2.5 (ii) (f) which obliges a candidate to complete the form of the examination and to meet all the requirements laid down by the rules of the Board. It is further submitted that the incomplete application form to take the examination was accepted by the petitioners in good grace with a view to affording a chance to the respondent to enable her to take the examination and thereafter it was the sole responsibility of the respondent herself to submit the requisite certificates in time and not having done so, she has to suffer.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for petitioners at some length, we are of the view that it is a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to examine the applicability of Rule 2.5(ii) 1(t) read with Rules 6 and 21 in Chapter 2 of the Calendar of the Board. Accordingly, leave is granted.