1991 PLP 1646 (CLC)

LAHORE‑‑‑Respondent Writ Petition No.8047 of 1990, decided on 19th May, 1991. ‑‑‑Examination‑‑‑Petitioner securing 678 marks in F.Sc. examination; his marks in Physics A & B Papers being 129, while he failed in practical examination of Physics wherein he secured only 5 marks out of 50‑‑‑Petitioner's contention was, that he having obtained high percentage marks in other Papers, was not expected to get such a low extent of marks in practical examination of Physics‑‑‑Board authorities admitted before the Court that the practical examiner had given marks "fictitious" on the petitioner's practical paper but no reason was given by the examiner in that behalf‑‑‑Charge of mala fides was also levelled by petitioner against the examiner‑‑‑Counsel for respondent, expressed no objection if respondent Board was directed to arrange for a fresh practical examination of petitioner by a new examiner‑‑‑Direction was issued to Board to make arrangement for practical examination of Physics of petitioner by a new examiner on or before specified date. Muzammal Hussain for Respondent No.2 According to the learned counsel the petitioner secured 678 marks in the F.Se. (Medical) Examination held in the year 1990. The petitioner obtained 129 marks in Physics A & B Papers. However, he failed in the practical examination of Physics whereby he secured only five marks out of

50. The principal contention of the learned counsel is that keeping in view the high percentage of the marks having been received by the petitioner in other papers, he cannot be expected to get such a low extent of marks namely 5/50 in the practical examination of Physics. It is, contended by the learned counsel that one Kabir Sheikh is not on friendly terms with the petitioner and that said Kabir Sheikh is friend of respondent No.2, Haroon Rashid, Examiner of the petitioner. It is stressed by the learned counsel that Kabir Sheikh prevailed upon respondent No.2 to give the lowest marks to the petitioner in the practical examination. Respondent No.2 is present. He has been heard. He states that he has made correct assessment of allotment of marks to the petitioner in the practical examination. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the remarks given by respondent No.2 on practical paper of the petitioner "Fictitious". It was mentioned by the Intermediate Board Authorities that no reason was given by the Examiner in that behalf. Viewpoint of Muzammal Hussain learned counsel for the respondents has been heard. He says that he has no objection if respondent No.l is directed to arrange for a fresh practical examination of the petitioner by a new Examiner. In the circumstances, a direction is issued to the said respondent No.l to make arrangement for practical examination of Physics of the petitioner by a new examiner on or before 19‑6‑1991. With this observations, this petition stands disposed of. AA./R‑297/L Order accordingly.