2003 PLP 1402 (YLR)

Gynae/Obs. 290/500 312/500 102/150 93/150 88+69/300

2. In the subject of Gynae/Obs. petitioner, as indicated above, obtained 88 + 69 marks and therefore, failed. If she had obtained one more mark, she would have been entitled to five grace marks and thereby would have qualified the examination. Petitioner addressed applications to the University Authorities, to the examiners and to the Provincial Ombudsman making prayers for re‑checking. The stance of the respondent/University before the Ombudsman was; that the matter had been referred to the Board of Studies, and Medicines. The Provincial Ombudsman in the afore‑referred circumstances disposed of her complaint with the following observation:‑‑ "Having gone through the record, it is observed that re‑evaluation cannot be done in the instant case. However, the case of complainant for rectifying the alleged errors/omissions is referred by the Agency to the Board of Studies in Medicine, which is a competent forum. "

3. The Board of Studies in its meeting held on 12‑9‑2002 relying on an earlier decision/resolution of the Board of Studies decided as under:‑‑ "Resolved that the award be revised after their submission to the University. It was further resolved that the Principals of the Medical Colleges should inform their Professors that the secrecy of award lists must be maintained by the Examiners and that any error to the data is their own responsibility."

4. The members felt that the rules did not permit to revise the result of any candidate without any reason when it is declared by the Controller of Examinations. The Board observed that the candidate must ‑had adopted the proper way of re‑checking of her result, according to the University Rules. The Board, therefore, decided not to entertain the revised award lists for the revision of result of the candidate and asked her to proceed, as per rules of the University.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Board of Studies has proceeded on a wrong premise inasmuch as petitioner's prayer was not for re‑evaluation but her case was that there was a mistake in the award list and her stand was vindicated by the report of the examiner namely, Dr. Shahida Sheikh.

6. Learned counsel for the University of Punjab on the other hand defended the decision of the Board of Studies by submitting that there is a finality attached to the award list; that the examiner had no authority to revise the award; that if such a practice is sanctified, the results announced by the University of Punjab would be subjected to frequent revisions which is not in law and that the act of respondent does not reflect any jurisdictional defect to warrant interference under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. He, however, added that the report of the examiner is belated and does not carry any sanctity.

7. Learned Additional Advocate General, who was called to assist submits that the report of the examiner indicates that there was some mistake in tabulation and those reports have to be given weight particularly when it does not violate any resolution of the Board of Studies or any statutory provision as no re‑evaluation was carried out and only a mistake/wrong was undone.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have considered the submissions made by them. Admittedly petitioner was short of only one mark in clinical examination to qualify herself for the grace marks which would have ultimately declares her passed. It is further not denied that petitioner had not asked for re‑evaluation either before the Ombudsman or before the University Authorities and the report of the Examiner also does not talk of re‑evaluation. The report reads as under:‑‑ "The above candidate appeared in final professional M.B.B.S. Examination in the subject of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and was declared fail in the subject by the University. I have checked the result of the above said candidate and found mistake in the tabulation. She secured 71/120 marks in the clinical examination collectively instead of 50/120 marks. "

9. A mere perusal of the record/report/letter reflects that the examiner had merely rectified a mistake in tabulation. This act of the examiner, therefore, was not hit by the decision/resolution of the Board of Studies dated 4‑7‑1982 on which the respondent/University had proceeded to decide petitioner's case. No wonder the Board of Studies in its meeting dated 12‑9‑2002 did not give any finding on merits of the afore referred report of the Examiner or the act of rectifying the mistake. The revision of the result made by the examiner could not be classified as a revision without any "reasonable ground" which is prohibited under the resolution of the Board of Studies. This correction of result is not unprecedented either.

10. For instance, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 1795 of 1998 (Rawalpindi Bench), wherein, this Court held as under:‑‑ "The re‑evaluation or re‑assessment of the marks is different to that of the re‑checking of the paper for the purpose of correction of clerical mistake and such other omission in the record and therefore, the mistake in the papers as well as in the record prepared by the concerned authorities not relating to re‑assessment or re evaluation of marks can be rectified at any stage."

11. What has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and it is directed that the respondent authorities shall issue a final result in terms of the afore‑referred report of the examiner. There shall be no order as to cost. S.A.K./R‑217/L Petition accepted.