PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court on Wednesday issued a notice to the Peshawar Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE), seeking its response to the petition of a visually impaired female student, who claimed that she was deprived of third position in the recently announced results of secondary school certificate examination in the arts group by arbitrarily altering her marks.

A bench consisting of Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Dr Khurshid Iqbal directed the board to submit a reply to the petition by Aug 21 and adjourned hearing into the petition of Marwah Khan.

The petitioner claimed that she had obtained 1090 marks out of 1200, which were two more than that of the third position holder, who received 1088 marks. However, she claimed that her marks were unjustly altered and reduced to 1087 without any intimation or legal basis.

The petitioner requested the court to declare illegal and discriminatory the post–results deduction of her three marks by the respondents.

Petitioner claims her exam result altered, depriving her of third position

She sought directives of the court for respondents, including the BISE, to restore her original score of 1090 marks and place her name in the official list of position holders.

The petitioner requested the court to order an inquiry into the conduct of the relevant officials of the BISE Peshawar involved in this ‘manipulation and discriminatory’ behaviour.

The respondents included the provincial government through the chief secretary, elementary and secondary education secretary, and the chairman and controller examination of the BISE Peshawar.

Advocate Abbas Khan Sangeen appeared for the petitioner and stated that the BISE had announced the results of SSC examination on July 28.

He stated that the petitioner’s original result card reflected 1090 marks, while a subsequent manipulated version showed 1087 marks.

The lawyer claimed that prior to the official announcement of position holders, officials of the BISE had contacted the principal of the petitioner’s institution and inquired about her partial blindness, which indicated a biased, discriminatory motive and malafide intent in excluding her from due recognition.

He contended that the petitioner’s exclusion from the merit list of toppers was a gross violation of her fundamental rights, including the right to be treated with equality before the law and non-discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution, particularly in view of her disability which mandated support and not suppression.

The counsel argued that no opportunity of rechecking, hearing or complaint redressal was provided to the petitioner, thus violating the right of due process.

He stated that the petitioner had approached the secretary education through a formal written complaint but no action had been taken so far.

The counsel argued that the result once declared was binding unless error was proved transparently.

Published in Dawn, August 14th, 2025