CLC 2007

2007 PLP 34 (CLC)

Mian MUHAMMAD RASHID — Petitioner Versus BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN through Vice-Chancellor and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
2006-September-27
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2007 PLP 34 (CLC)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties Mian MUHAMMAD RASHID — Petitioner Versus BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN through Vice-Chancellor and another — Respondents
Primary Law Educational institution
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 34 (CLC)?

This judgment primarily cites: Educational institution as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 34 (CLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 34 (CLC) (Mian MUHAMMAD RASHID — Petitioner Versus BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN through Vice-Chancellor and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Educational institution

Representation

  • Ch. Abdul Ghani for Petitioner.
  • Muhammad Qasim Khan, A.A.-G. for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

Re-evaluation of answer book

Candidate had sought re-evaluation of his B.A. Examination Paper "B" (Answer book) contending that two questions in said paper had not been correctly evaluated

No provision being in the University Statutes for re-evaluation of the answer book, candidate was rightly denied re-evaluation of his answer book

Candidate applied for rechecking of paper which had already been done.

Judgment & Decree

MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J.

Seeks re-evaluation of his B.A. Education Paper "B" answer book. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that questions Nos.5 and 9 have not been correctly evaluated. It is admitted by the learned counsel that there is no provision in the University Statutes for re-evaluation of the answer book. He applied for rechecking and the same has already been done.

2. Since there is no provision in the University Statute for re-evaluation of the answer book of the petitioner, therefore, this petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-575/L Petition dismissed.