1994 PLP 1930 (CLC)

Dr. M. Mohi‑ud‑Din, learned counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent‑Board and has also filed parawise comments. It is his case that the petitioner's papers were rechecked in accordance with rules and since no discrepancy was found, as such, the request of the petitioner was not acceded. He has further stated that in this case the Examiner as well as the Head Examiner both were called and their statements were recorded who deposed that the marking was done strictly in accordance with rules. Furthermore, according to him, there is no cutting or overwriting in the index as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner was informed through letter No. 2876‑ACS dated 8th of August, 1993. , I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have noticed that in parzz. 4 of the writ petition a vague allegation has been levelled that on account of the facts that certain teachers of his and other schools, who were quite aware of the meritorious performance of the petitioner in his "A academic carer throughout, they in a mala fide manner in order to bring on top their own favourits evaluated the petitioner's papers in a mala fide manner. The allegation levelled is totally vague and has simply been made in general terms without there being any specification. It has been held in The Federation of Pakiti;,ri v. Saced Ahmad Khan and others (PLD 1974 SC 151) as under:‑‑ "Mala fide is one of the most difficult things to prove and the onus is entirely upon the person alleging mala fides to establish it, because, there is, to start with, a presumption of regularity with regard to all official acts, and until that presumption is rebutted, the action cannot be challenged merely upon a vague allegation of mala fides. As has been pointed out by this Court in the case of the Government of West Pakistan v. Begum Agha Abdul Karim Shorish Kashmiri (PLD 1969 SC 14), mala fides must be pleaded with particularity, and once one kind of mala fides is alleged, no one should be allowed to adduce proof of any other kind of mala fides nor should any enquiry be launched upon merely on the basis of vague and indefinite allegations, nor should the person alleging mala fides be allowed a roving enquiry into the files of the Government for the purposes of fishing out some kind of a case." Reliance is also placed on Aman Ullah Khan and others v. The Federal Government of Pakistan etc. (PLD 1990 SC 1092). In this view of the matter, such a wild allegation does not advance the. case of the petitioner any further. Rule 15 of Chapter 5 of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha, provides as under:‑‑ "Candidates appearing in all the examinations conducted by the Board shall be permitted to get their answer books rechecked to the effect that‑‑ (1) totals have been rightly brought forward; (2) no portion of any answer has been left unmarked; (3) there is no mistake in the grand total on the cover of the answer‑book; or/and (4) the answer‑book has not been changed. Candidates desirous of getting their answer‑books checked if this way, would have to apply for this purpose within 40 days of the declaration of the result and pay Rs.50 as fee for rechecking each paper. The fee shall be refunded if any mistake is found or the application is rejected being time‑barred." The respondents in accordance with the provisions of this rule rechecked the petitioner's papers and found no mistake as argued. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client's answer books were not evaluated in accordance with rules is devoid of any force. In Ali Mir v. Province of Punjab etc. (PLD 1983 Lahore 262) the learned Judge of a Division Bench while issuing the writ also observed as under:‑‑ "I only wish to say that this Court does not interfere in marking of answer books by examiners of the educational institutions. It is their job and satisfaction as to what standard the students have attained." It is pertinent to mention here that even the writ issued by the Division Bench in the peculiar facts of the aforestated case was withdrawn on appeal filed by the. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, which is reported as Chairman, Board of 'Intermediate and Secondary Education; Lahore, and another v. Ali Mir. It is the job of Examiner to evaluate the answer book and once it is duly marked; no interference is justified in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. I fail to understand the argument of the learned counsel that how and under what provision of law the petitioner took two Subject Specialists during the course of rechecking when the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has totally denied this assertion. This writ petition merits dismissal on yet other ground that the petitioner has not made all those Examinees/students as party who have secured higher marks than him and against whom relief is claimed. A roving enquiry in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction cannot be undertaken to make out a case of rechecking for the petitioner. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, I do not find any force in this petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. AA./T‑79/L Petition dismissed.