1999 PLP 2405 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD JAFFER HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, D. G. KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 2405 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD JAFFER HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, D. G. KHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Educational institution |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 2405 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Educational institution as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 2405 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 2405 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD JAFFER HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, D. G. KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Abdul Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th July, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 20-11-1997 passed by Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in I.-C.A. No. 218 of 1997).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185 (3) & 199
Evaluation of answer books
Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of
Candidate dissatisfied with his result of examination applied for re-checking of his answer books
No decision having been taken on the application, civil suit was filed by candidate for re evaluation of answer books which was subsequently withdrawn
Constitutional petition and Intra-Court appeal of candidate were dismissed
High Court in -Intra-Court Appeal had observed that evaluation of papers could not be resorted to in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Marking of answer books was a job to be performed by expert in subject concerned and High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction was not required to evaluate papers in any other manner
Candidate had not urged that any one of the examiners was inimically disposed towards him
Parental jurisdiction exercised by Education Board was rightly not interfered with by High Court.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20-11-1997 passed in Intra-Court Appeal No.218 of 1997, whereby the order dated 31-10-1997, dismissing the Writ Petition No.8327 of 1997, was upheld.
2. Brief facts are that the petitioner appeared in Intermediate I-Annual Examination, 1996 (Pre-Engineering) under Roll No. 6789. The result was declared in October, 1996. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the result applied for re-checking of the answer books in papers of Chemistry, Mathematics, Pakistan Studies and Urdu, after depositing the requisite fee.
3. The case of the petitioner is that no decision was taken on his application. Consequently, he could not avail the examination of 1997. However, he filed a civil suit before the Court of Ch. Muhammad Siddique, Civil Judge, 1st Class, D.G. Khan, for the re-evaluation of his scripts (Solved Answer-Books), for Intermediate (Annual) Examination, 1996. The suit was later withdrawn.
4. The petitioner thereafter filed Writ Petition No.8327 of 1997, which was dismissed. The Intra-Court Appeal filed by the petitioner also met the same fate. It was observed by the Division Bench of the High Court that evaluation of the papers could not be resorted to in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.
5. Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the petitioner applied for re-checking of the four papers referred above but the Board re-checked only two papers and did not make am- effort to re-check the remaining papers. According to him, neither the learned Single Judge nor the learned members of the Division Bench of the High Court appreciated this aspect of the matter in its true perspective.
6. We have seen the application moved by the petitioner for re-checking of the answer-sheets. The 'same was disposed of by the Board, inter alia, with the following observations:
The result was that in two papers the necessary correction in marks was made.
7. After perusal of the entire material available before it the High Court came to the following conclusion:-- "There is no allegation of mala fide against the Sub-Examiner or the Head Examiner whatsoever. Minor discrepancies in evaluation are bound to happen while marking answer books by Examiner and such a discrepancy, hardly furnishes a valid ground to interfere with marking of papers by this court under Article 199 of the Constitution. It has also been pointed out that petitioner has failed in three subjects and awarding of the two more marks in the said paper will only qualify him to appear in the next examination in two subjects instead of appearing in all the subjects ...."
8. It is well-settled that marking of answer-books is a job to be performed by the experts in the subject concerned and the High Court in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction is not required to evaluate the papers in any other manner. It is not the case of the petitioner that any one of the examiners was inimically disposed towards him. The parental jurisdiction exercised by the respondent-Board, was rightly not interfered with by the High Court. No ground for interference has been made out.
9. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave refused. N.H.Q/M-226/S Petition dismissed.