' SHAMEEM HUSSAIN KADRI, J.-The petitioner's review petition was admitted by Dr. Nasim Hassan Shah, 3., as his Lordship was then a Judge of this Court, against his own judgment dated 14th April 1977..
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner who has passed Fazil-ePunjabi Examination, appeared in English only of the Intermediate Examination and secured 65 marks out of 200. The learned. Judge after considering the various rules of the Board dismissed the writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the Rules. The stand taken by him is that the petitioner is entitled to 13 concessional marks under rule 13 of the Rules for the Intermediate Examination. It is argued that the learned Judge had not adverted to rule 16 while deciding the case. The plain reading of the two rules clearly shows that the concession of 1% of the total number of marks would be available to a person who appears in anyone of the groups. English alone is not mentioned in any one of them, described in the table of contents.
4. It was vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that English being a compulsory subject is by itself a group. The argument is fallacious, for, a group consists of certain subjects including English. Rule 16(i) provides that a candidate who appears in English only would be entitled to a certificate of English and not the certificate of Intermediate standard. However, sub- rule (ii) of rule 16 provides that on qualifying English and two other subjects from Humanities group, not being languages, the candidate will be granted the Intermediate Certificate. This is not the case of the present petitioner to claim benefit of rule 13. The petitioner's case does not fall within the purview of Order XLVII, rule 1, C. P. C. The petition fails and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.