Law:

Section:

CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.---The brief facts, giving rise to this appeal, are that respondent No.3 was nominated by respondent No. 1 under section 5(1)(ix) of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976 as Member Board in the category of retired educationalist of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Rawalpindi for a period of three years. This happened vide Notification, dated 11-2-1998. The appellant being aggrieved filed W.P. No.555 of 1998 on the ground that respondent No.3 is F.A.C.T. only whereas the appellant is B.A. B. Ed., therefore, his appointment is not in accordance with the provision of Punjab Board Act, 1976 and is in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment, dated 31-8-1998; hence the present appeal.   The learned counsel for the appellant on 7-12-1998 under instructions stated that he would not press his claim to be appointed as Member of the Board himself and that the instant appeal may be directed against the appointment of respondent No.3 alone on the ground that he had no requisite qualification to be appointed members as educationalist.   The learned counsel for the appellant contended that respondent No.3 was only F.A.,C.T. and was retired as Vernacular English Teacher, therefore, he did not possess prescribed qualification as enacted by section 5(1)(ix) of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976.   The learned counsel for respondent No.1 stated that neither respondent No.3 nor appellant - falls under the category of educationalist; the word educationalist must reveal that he must be equated with the status of Principal, Member or Headmaster; that educationalist must be equated with the word scholar which is mentioned in clause ( ix) of the aforesaid section.   The learned counsel for respondent No. 2, stated that writ petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge as the appellant is not aggrieved person which is condition precedent; similarly appellant has no locus stand to file writ petition against the nomination of respondent No.3 by respondent No. 1 which is…