KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.--- The petitioner passed the Secondary School Examination in Arts Subjects from Sargodha Board, Sargodha in 1994. In December, 1998, the petitioner submitted examination from for taking Secondary School Examination, 1999 to be conducted by the respondent Board for taking examination in additional Science subjects viz:-
(I) Mathematics. (H) Physics.
(III) Chemistry.
(IV) Biology.
The respondent Board demanded the petitioner to furnish photograph, the result card of previous examination from Sargodha Board as also No Objection Certificate from the said Board. During this period the Punjab Boards Chairmen Committee made a recommendation that a candidate passing examination from other Board should be permitted to take examination from a different.
Board. Acting on the assumption that this recommendation will he adopted by the respondent Board, an official in the relevant branch issued the roll number slip to the petitioner on 22.2.1999. On 25.2.1999, the Lahore Board in its meeting did not accept the recommendation and decided that a student of other Board will not be entitled to take examination in the additional subjects. The petitioner was, therefore, denied the permission to take examination which denial led the petitioner to file this Constitutional petition claiming that the impugned order/denial of the respondent Board, Copy Annexure-E, be declared as without lawful authority, on the ground that the Board having once issued the roll number was not competent to deny taking of examination.
2. In the report and parawise comments, the claim of the petitioner is denied by contending that the recommendation of the Punjab Boards Chairmen Committee is not binding on the Board and that in any case unless the recommendation is incorporated in the relevant rules, it has no legal effect. It is also claimed that in 'any case no "No Objection Certificate" was submitted from Sargodha Board, as demanded.
3. Learned counsel. For the petitioner has attempted to argue that the Resolution of the respondent Board dated 25.2:1999 refusing to accept the recommendation of the Punjab Boards chairmen Committee is not effective because the same has not been approved by the Government. He has referred to the relevant statutory provisions to show that the amendment/change is to be approved by the Government before attaining legal efficacy. On the other hand, learned' counsel for the Board has referred to Rule 17 read with Rule 5 of Chapter I entitled "Rules for the Secondary School Examination" to show that the petitioner does not qualify to appear in the additional subjects and that the recommendation of the Chairman Committee as well as its non- incorporation by the respondent Board has no bearing on the controversy.
4. Rule 5 states:- to order to be eligible to appear in the Secondary School Examination, a private candidate must:- -
(I) submit his admission form and the. Prescribed fees to the Board by such dates as may he fixed by the Board, together with the following certificates signed by an authorized person:-
(i) of possessing good moral character;
(ii) of having paid the prescribed fees to the Board;
(iii) of belonging to or residing in, an area falling within the territorial limits of the Board;
5. Rule 17 reads:- "A candidate who has qualified for the grant of the Secondary School Certificate may appear in any subsequent examination in subject or .Subjects not offered by him previously or a subject or subjects not offered by him previously or a subject or subjects offered by him previously but in which he had failed. Such a candidate shall, on passing in the relevant subject or subjects, he granted a certificate to that effect."
6. Cumulative reading of the above provisions establishes beyond doubt that a candidate who wants to take examination in additional subjects must have previously passed the examination from the respondent Board. I do not accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of the name of the Respondent Board in the relevant rules, the is no compelling reasons to restrict its application to the candidates of Lahore Board only. The reason is that the Rules have been framed by the Lahore Board and clearly they are applicable to a candidate who has passed Secondary School Examination from the Lahore Board. Any ambiguity in Rule 17 is cleared by Rule 5, which enumerates the conditions of eligibility of a private candidate. One of the conditions is that a candidate must belong to or reside in an area falling within the territorial limits of the Lahore Board.
It would be doing violence to ordinary rules of construction to hold that a candidate having passed Secondary School Examination from any Board in Punjab can take the examination in the additional subjects from the Lahore Board, by relying on Rule 17, If this be so, there was no need for the Punjab Boards Chairmen Committee to make the recommendation. If anything, the Resolution of the Lahore Board dated 25.2.1999 (copy Annexure-R/6 with the parawise comments) fortifies the above interpretation. The Resolution makes it clear that a candidate coming from other Board cannot take examination in additional subjects from the Lahore Board.
7. For what has been stated above, there is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.