Zafar Ullah Vs Chairman, BISE, Bannu, etc

Judgment Sheet

PESIIAWAR IIIGH ;COURT. BAIINU BENCH

v (Judtcial DePartment)

WP No.781-B/2025

ZafarUllah Vs Chairman, BISE, Bannu, etc.

JUDGMENT

For petitioner(s): Mr. Shabir Ahmad Khan Advocate For respondent(s): Mr. Matiullah Jan Khan Advocate Date of hearingt M * rl. rl. rf rr

MUHAMMAD TARIO AFRIDI. J.- Through the instant writ petition, filed under Article lgg of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

,.on acceptance of the instant writ petition, the action of e the respondents in withhotding the petitioner's result be declaredillegal,arbitrary,voidandwithoutlawful authority,andtherespondent.boardbedirectedto immediatelyreleaseandnotifythepetitioner'sresult havingRollNo.So2z24andrestraintherespondentsfrom takinganyadverseactionagainstthepetitionerregarding this examination attemPt"'

2.Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as pleaded in the writ petition, are that after passing his examinations of Part-I and

form, Part-II of HSSC, the petitioner submitted an improvement which was duly accepted by the Board of Intermediate and

Roll Secondary Education (BISE), Bannu' Consequently' Number Slip bearing No.802724 was issued to him, thereby

permittinghisappearanceintheHssCAnnual-IlExamination 2024 for the purpose of improving his marks' It is further averredthatthepetitioneraccordinglyappearedinthesaid pnafoor Zaman) (D.8.) lfon Ute Mr. Justice Muhammad Tariq Afridi Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul FaYaz

improvement examination under Roll No.802724, however, the Board subsequently withheld his result, with the remark "Multiple Improvements Not Allowed." The petitioner contended that he was never informed of any restriction on multiple improvements, nor was any such bar mentioned in the admission form or Roll Number Slip. Rather, the Board accepted his improvement form and permitted him to take the examination. It is further averred that the petitioner has been preparing for the Medical and Dental Colleges Admission Test (MDCAT) for more than two years, and the improvement attempt was crucial for securing admission to medical colleges, as he performed exceptionally well. The withholding of his result, therefore, is alleged to be atbitrary, discriminatory, and without lawful authority, causing irreparable loss at this decisive stage of his academic career, which has constrained f him to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court through the present writ petition.

3.Arguments heard. Record perused'

4.Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the Board in withholding the petitioner's result is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory, and without lawful

HSSC

authority. He submits that after the petitioner passed his part-I and Part-II examinations, the BIsE, Bannu permitted him to submit an improvement form, accepted the same, and issued Roll Number Slip bearing No.802724 authorizing his appearance in the Annual-Il Examination 2024. Learned

counsel contends that once the Board accepted the form and arose that issued the Roll Number Slip, a legitimate expectation and his result the petitioner's attempt would be duly rccognized declared. He funher contends that no restriction on multiple

improvements was ever communicated to the petitioner, nor

was any such condition or bar mentioned in the Admission Hon'ble Justice Afridi Zaman) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul FaYaz

Form or Roll Number slip. The petitioner appeared in the examination in good faith, performed exceptionally well, and his improvement result is indispensable for securing admission to medical colleges, particularly in view of his outstanding IVDCAT score of L64 out of 180, for which he has been preparing forl more than two years. He added that the withholding of the result without issuing any notice, show-cause, or affording an opportunity of hearing is violative of Articles 4, 10-A, ffid 25 of the Constitution, which guarantee treatment in accordance with law, fairness, due process, and equality before law. He maintains that the respondents, having allowed the petitioner to sit in the examination, cannot subsequently deny him the fruit of his effort on undisclosed

grounds, and such conduct amounts to mala fide exercise of

power. He, therefore, prays that the impugned action be

to release and ? declared void and the respondents be directed notiff the petitioner's result forthwith, ffid they be restrained of this from taking any adverse action against him in respect examination attemPt.

5.Conversely,learnedcounselfortherespondent-Board submits that the petitioner has already availed two improvement policy' no attempts, and under the prevailing rules and other than a third-division holder is entitled to more candidate submits that the than two chances of improvement. He further petitioner, having improved his marks in the Annual-Il

Examinat ion2023 and againin the Annual-I Examinationaoz{' Examinat\on 2024 was not eligible to appear in the Annual.Il forafurtherimprovementattempt.Learnedcounselfurther ,,Multiple Improvements Not contends that the remark Allowed" recorded against Roll No' 802724 is in strict of the Calendar conformity with Rule 20 of Chapter.V, Part.II Khyber of Boards of Intermediate and secondary Education, Justice Tariq Zanan) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul FaYaz

Pakhtunkhwa, as well as the uniform policy adopted by the t Khyber Pakhtgnkhwa Boards Chairmen Committee (KPBCC) in its 23gfn meeting held on 29.05.2023, reaffirmed in the 49ft Board Meeting on 03. t1.2023, and again in the 268'J0 meeting held on 12.10.2025. He further contends that Rule 20 clearly restricts improvement opportunities to two successive examinations, whether annual or supplementary, and that the petitioner has already exhausted that statutory right. He adds was that the issuance of a Roll Number Slip in the present case based on concealment of facts by the petitioner and, therefore, it

does not confer any vested right upon him to seek declaration of

his result contrary to the goveming rules and policy' He 1 concludes that the writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be

invoked to compel the Board to act in violation of its statutory on all calendar and uniform policy decisions, which are binding Boards in the province and accordingly prays for dismissal of

the petition.

The sole question requiring determination in the present

writ petition is whether the Board acted lawfully in withholding improvement the petitioner's result on the ground that multiple attempts are not permissible notwithstanding that his

number 802124 improvement form had been accepted and roll had been issued to him? For proper appreciation, it is expedient calendar of to reproduce Rule 20 of chapter-v, Part-II of the Khyber Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Pakhtunkfiwa, which reads as under:

u20.|twasdecidedthatthecandidatesmaybeallowedto improveanyparti.e.eitherPart-IorPart.Ilafterpassing Part-I & Part-II examination they can appear for improvementofDivisioninPart.I&Part.IItogether beforetakingnexthigherexaminationinanyofthetwo successive Intermediate Examination (Suppl: or Annual)."

Mr. Muhammad Afridi Zaman) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul FaYaz

7.A plain reading of Rule 20 makes it clear that the right of v improvement is not unfettered. It is confined to two successive examinations, whether annual or supplementary, and must be exercised before proceeding to the next higher examination. The rule, thus, creates a limited statutory entitlement, circumscribed both by the time within which it may be exercised and the number of permissible attempts. It is a settled principle of law that where a statute prescribes a particular manner for the exercise of a right, it must be exercised in that manner alone, or not at all.

g. The record produced by learned counsel for the availed respondents demonstrates that the petitioner has already vl two improvement attempts. Initially, he appeared in the and Annual-I (Part-II) Examination}}Z3 under Rotl No.407132 secured 938 marks. Thereafter, in the Annual-Il (Pafi-II) his Examination 2023 under Roll No.802428, he improved Examination marks to 947. Again, in the Annual-I (Part-II) his marks to 2024 under Roll No.418244, he further improved g7l. His subsequent appearance in the Annual-Il (Part-II) a third Examinat ion 2024 under Roll No.802724 constituted scope of attempt, which clearly falls beyond the permissible Rule 20.

g.TheKhyberPakhtunkhwaBoardsChairmenCommittee adopted a (KPBCC), in its 23g1c[ meeting held on 29.05.2023, than those placed in uniform policy permiuing candidates other without any third-division only two improvement attempts, timerestriction,providedtheyhadnottakenahigher examination. This policy was reaffirmed in the 49th Board again in the 268n Meeting of BISE Bannu on 03'1 l'2023 and meetingoftheKPBCCheldon|2.lo.2o25,therebybindingall Boardsintheprovincetoauniformstandard.Itisawell- taken by competent established principle that policy decisions Mr Zarran) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul FaYaz

academic bodies in the exercise of their statutory functions are v entitled to judicial deference, unless shown to be mala fide or ultra vires.

down in Khan and rothers (PLD 2022 SC 92), wherein the august supreme court held that courts must exercise restraint in interfering with matters pertaining to intemal governance and academic policy, which fall within the specialized domain of educational institutions. The uniform policy of the KPBCC restricting improvement attempts to two, is squarely within the domain of academic autonomy and warrants deference.

11.The contention of the petitioner that issuance of a ro11 number slip created a legitimate expectation is misconceived. V The doctrine of legitimate expectation, though recognized in administrative law, cannot override express statutory provisions or confer a right contrary to law. Mere issuance of a ro11 number slip, that too, in violation of the governing ruIes and policy, does not create any vested right in favour of a candidate to seek declaration of result. Courts have consistently held that estoppel cannot operate against statute. Reliance is placed on Mst. Haseena Bibi Vs Abdul Haleem (PLD 2024 SC 291).

12.The plea of violation of fundamental rights is equally untenable. The right to education and the right to fair treatment are subject to reasonable regulation imposed by statutory bodies. Where the governing rules resfict improvement attempts to two successive examinations, the petitioner cannot claim a constitutional entitlement to a third attempt. Article 4 of the Constitution guarantees treatment strictly in accordance with law, not in derogation of it. Article 10A ensures fair trial and due process, but due process cannot be invoked to compel an authority to act contrary to its statutory mandate. Article 25 (Ghafoor Zaman) (D.B.) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Tariq Afridi Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Fayaz

guarantees equality before law, however, equality demands v uniform application of rules, and the policy restricting improvements attempts to two applies equally to all candidates.

13.For the foregoing reasons, this court finds no merit in the writ petition, as the petitioner has already exhausted the improvement opportunities permissible under Rule 20 as well as under uniform policy of the KPBCC, and his third attempt is accordingly without lawful sanction. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the interim relief granted to the petitioner vide order dated 18.11 .2025 stands vacated.

Announced

JUDGE

a

PT

JUDGE

(Ghafoor Zarran) (D.B.) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Tariq Afridi Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Fayaz