2001 PLP 433 (CLC)
SAJID BIN NAWAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PUNJAB UNIVERSITY‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 433 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J |
| Parties | SAJID BIN NAWAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PUNJAB UNIVERSITY‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Calendar of the University of the Punjab‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 433 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Calendar of the University of the Punjab‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 433 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 433 (CLC) (SAJID BIN NAWAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PUNJAB UNIVERSITY‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Petitioner in person. Muhammad Saleem Shaikh for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 22nd September, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Regln. 37‑‑‑Constitution of . Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Educational institution‑‑‑Grace marks, grant of‑‑‑Candidate was short of 4 marks in aggregate of Part I and Part II of M.A. Examination‑‑ University officials refused to extend benefit of Regln.37 of Calendar of the University of the Punjab without any decision of Board of Examiners‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Matter of grace marks could only be decided by the Board of Examiners and not any other functionary from the University‑‑‑Refusal of grace marks by the University officials was without lawful authority and of no legal effect‑‑‑High Court directed the University to place the case of the candidate before Board of Examiners who would proceed to decide the claim in accordance with law‑‑‑Petition was allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner in person. Muhammad Saleem Shaikh for Respondent. Date of hearing: 22nd September, 2000. Petitioner has been taken the M.A. English Examination Part I and Part II between 1995 Annual and 1997 Annual. The net result has been that he was declared pass bpth in Part I and Part II papers and fell short by four marks in the aggregate. His case is that being a borderline case, he is entitled to be declared pass by granting him four grace marks in M.A. Part I as per Regulation No.37 appearing in the Calendar of the Punjab University. Instead of the grant of grace marks, he has been declared fail in Part I Examination and it is this failure declaration which is subjected to challenge in this petition on the ground that petitioner has been strongly denied four grace marks and that petitioner is being discriminated as some of the students have been granted grace marks.
2. In the comments, the claim is denied and it is stated that Regulation No.37 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. In fact, it is stated that the decision of grace marks has been revised and the same is applicable now to the examination held in 1999 afterwards.
3. Respective contentions have been reiterated during the course of hearing. The same need not be decided because it has emerged during hearing that the case of the petitioner for grant of grace marks was never considered by the only competent authority viz. Board of Examiners. It is for the Board rather than any official to determine such questions. Before me it has not been argued that Regulation No.37 stands repealed or is not part of the University Calendar. The Regulation envisaged decision of such questions by the Board of Examiners and not any other functionary from the University.
4. I would, therefore, accept this petition on this ground alone and declare the impugned action a$ without lawful authority and consequently of no legal effect. I would further direct that the case of the petitioner for grant of grace marks or otherwise will be placed before the Board of Examiners who will proceed to decide the claim in accordance with law. It is clarified that it will be open for the Board to decide the question like applicability of the Regulation. The Board will have to hear the petitioner in support of his claim. No order as to costs.
5. Since, the petitioner's future is involved, this Court expects that respondents will decide the questions expeditiously and preferably within six weeks. Q. M. H. /M. A. K./S‑109/L Order accordingly.