1996CLC617 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑Examination‑‑‑‑Additional marks‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Candidate attempted four questions, but his paper was evaluated at the rate of 20 marks against each question‑‑‑As per rule, in case a candidate attempted five questions, his answer would be evaluated at the rate of 20 marks per question, but in case he answered only four questions, he would be given marks at the rate of 25 marks per question‑‑‑Candidate who had attempted four questions, was entitled to be given marks under the rule applicable to him‑‑‑Candidate, thus was entitled to get additional 25 % marks which were not given to him for no valid reasons. Zahid Manzoor Qureshi v. University of the Punjab and another Writ Petition No. 11946 of 1991 and Writ Petition No. 516 of 1992 ref. Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad Raja Farooq for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd March, 1994. The facts are that the petitioner, Hanif Khokhar appeared in M.A. Examination held by the University of the Punjab in the year 1989. According to the result, announced by the University, the petitioner failed in Paper 11 because he could get only 27 marks out of

100. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner attempted four questions and that each question carried 25 marks with it. However, the petitioner's paper was evaluated at the rate of 20 marks, against each question and as such he was entitled to be given the concessional marks at the rate of 25 % of the total marks obtained by him in the Examination. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 11946/1991 and Writ Petition No. 516/1992 (Zahid Manzoor Qureshi v. University of the Punjab and another) in support of his case. In the referred case, it was held that the writ petitioners were entitled to get additional marks at the rate of 25 % of the total marks secured by them. If this rule is applied to the case in hand, the petitioner would get 34 marks so as to declare him successful in the examination. It is argued that the case of the petitioner is at par with the cases referred to above. Learned counsel for the respondent, University was, however, unable to draw any distinction between these two set of cases.

2. I have considered both the cases, together. The facts in both of them are identical. The learned counsel for the University even does not say that this case stands on a different footing than the referred cases. The objection was that the petitioner did not mention at the first page of paper book that he would attempt four or five questions. It is evident as per rule that, in case, a candidate attempts five questions, his answers shall be evaluated at the rate of 20 marks per question. However, in case, he answers only four questions, he shall be given marks at the rate of 25 marks per question. In the case in hand, four questions were attempted and as such he was entitled to the concession to be given to him under the rule applicable on that controversy. This being so, the petitioner is entitled to get the additions; 25% marks which were not given to him for no valid reasons. A direction shall, therefore, issue to the respondents to add 25 % additional marks in English Paper 11 of the petitioner. This would make the total marks obtained by the petitioner as 34 in the said paper. On the basis of these marks, the petitioner would be declared successful in the examination. With these remarks, this petition succeeds and is allowed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./H‑167/L Petition allowed.