Find a Lawyer

Art. 9‑Writ jurisdiction‑Scrutiny of maintainability of plea' .,,,, in‑Disciplinary body disqualifying examinee from passing relevant examination and debarring him from three subsequent examinations alleging marks awarded on his answer‑book not justified and t apparently examiner influenced to help him with more marks --Nothing on record even to suggest candidate had in any way influ enced examiner or persuaded him to award marks which his answers did not justify‑Held, plea of Body cannot be maintained‑Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore Calendar, r. 6.8 (ii) and (iv).

Ch. Mushtaq Masood with Malik Amjad Pervez for Petitioner:

Ch. Ejaz Ahmad for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 26th October, 1982.

The petitioner appeared in Autumn 1981, F. Sc. (Pre‑Engineering) Examination and on 31st December, 1981, attempted his practical Che mistry paper. On 8th March, 1982, the Examiner reported . in respect of 5 students, that the marks awarded on their answer books were not justified and they apparently influenced Rana Mahboob Ahmad their Examiner to help them with more marks.

2. The report (Rj1) dated 9th March, 1982, was also obtained from an expert who stated that the answers did not justify the marks given to the petitioner. The petitioner was charge‑sheeted on 22nd April, 1982, on that basis, under rules 6.8 (ii) and 6.8 (iv) of the Calendar of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore. He appeared before the Disciplinary Committee on 11th May, 1982, which disqualified him on 2nd June, 1982, from passing the relevant examination I and debarred him from three subsequent consecutive examinations. His appeal also failed and hence this petition.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel that it is possible that the marks awarded to the petitioner were not justified but there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was in any way responsible for the same. It is argued that a possibility cannot be ruled out that the Examiner, either did not have the time and did not care to look at the paper or may be he himself was not qualified to evaluate the answers. In this view of the matter, it is pleaded that the petitioner should not be punished and his career ruined for no fault of his own.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent defends the order and states that there is a presumption that the petitioner might have influenced the examiner as otherwise he would not do what he did. He further states that the Board selects experienced and careful examiners for the marking of answer books. ; He relies also on Rahat Siddigui v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary. Education (P L D 1975 Lah 257) and Rahat Siddigui v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (1977 S C M R 213) in support of his plea.

5. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments as referred .to by the learned counsel, I find that there i nothing on record to even suggest that the petitioner had in any way influenced the examiner or persuaded him to award marks which his answers did not justify. It is possible as stated by the petitioner that either the examiner was not careful or did not evaluate marks properly or was himself ignorant of the subject. Be that as it may as very severe punishment bad been awarded to the petitioner, there must have been some . link between the act and the action taken. There is, however, not an iota of evidence to support the respondents' plea and so it cannot be maintained.

In this view of the matter, the impugned order is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The parties shall bear their own costs.

K.M.A. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.