Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Writ Petition No.5152 of 1984, decided on 18th June, 1985.
---Art. 199--Punjab University Regulations (Conduct of Examination), Chap. VII, No.23--Marking of ' examination paper--Dissatisfaction of student--Re-evaluation of--Dissatisfied with marking of examination paper student/petitioner applied to University Authorities for its re-evalua tion--On re-evaluation, Dean Faculty of Law enhanced marks--After re-evaluation University Authority on its own sent script alongwith others to panel of two experts for just evaluation--On re-examination by that panel marks were again decreased--Held, there was hardly any justification for making another person to appeal of evaluation done by one of members of panel of experts--Second exercise undertaken by other expert would, therefore, appear to be wholly unwarranted in law--University authorities directed by way of writ of mandamus to declare petitioner's result in conformity with first re-evaluation.
Kh. Ahmad Tariq Rahim for Petitioner.
Ch. Muhammad Farooq for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 18th June, 1985.
This writ petition has been filed on the grievance that the law has been flouted and there has been a misdirection on the part of the University authorities in dealing with the petitioner's case on an application submitted by her in terms of Regulation 23 of the Regulations governing the conduct of examinations.
2. The facts necessary to be mentioned in this regard are that the petitioner who appeared in the 1st Annual LL.B. Examination, 1980 held in April, 1983 was dissatisfied with her result in the subject of Equity Paper I. She deposited the prescribed fee and consequently the matter was got checked as regards the tabulation of the marks, etc. There was no error of the relevant kind found. However, under clause (b) of Regulation 23, the petitioner again moved the Vice-Chancellor on the grievance that her aforesaid paper had not been justly evaluated. In pursuance of this application, as the record of the University of the Punjab shows, in order to prima facie satisfy himself the Vice-Chancellor sent the petitioner's paper to the Dean of the Faculty of Law who granted her 58 instead of 37 marks.
3. Thereafter, not only the petitioner's script but the whole bundle of answer books were somehow sent by the University authorities to what they call a panel of two experts for the purpose of just evaluation. The script of the petitioner was re-examined by Mr. Justice (Rtd.) Saeedur Rehman Khan in July, 1983 and he instead of the previous 37 granted her 40 marks.
4. The learned Legal Adviser for the Punjab University on my asking stated that it is correct that on the script of the petitioner having been examined by Mr. Justice (Rtd.)
Saeedur Itahnian Khan the task of evaluation stood completed. In such a situation therefore, in my view there was hardly any justification for making another person to sit in appeal of the evaluation done by one of the members of the panel of experts. The second exercise undertaken by the other expert would therefore, appear to be wholly unwarranted in law.
5. In view of the position which emerged at the hearing, I have no hesitation in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case in accepting the writ petition and directing the University authorities by way of writ of mandamus to declare the petitioner's result in conformity with the first re-evaluation. In the circusmtances of the case since the writ petition is not being contested, there will be no order as to costs.
H . B . T . Writ petition accepted.