1983 PLP 155 (CLC)

‑‑‑ Art. 9 read with West Pakistan Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (Lahore) Ordinance (XVIII of 1961), Chap. 6, r. 15 (3)‑‑Marking of paper in examination‑Plea that marking of answer book was not to satisfaction of student‑Rule 15(3) not applicable to such case‑Marking of answer book in function of examiner‑Direction for re‑evaluation of answer book‑Held, not possible in absence of patent illegality or arbitrariness‑Award of less marks than deserved a hazard which each student accepts when appearing in an examination‑Uniformity of award of marks in non‑exact subjects, like language questions, not possible‑Asking for accuracy or exactness in marking of such subjects is asking for the moon‑Held, no case made out for interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. A. K Dogar for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 31st October, 1982. The petitioner appeared in F. Sc. (Pre‑Engineering) Examination in parts. Lastly he appeared in two subjects Urdu and English. He obtained 110 and 111 marks out of 200 in the respective subjects. In the latter subject i. e. English, in one of the papers, Paper 'A', he got 39 out of 100 marks. He felt dissatisfied with this marking and applied to the respondent Board for rechecking. The request was declined. He has filed this Constitutional petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that under rule 15(3), Chapter 6 the West Pakistan (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore) Ordinance No. XVIII of 1961, an examinee is entitled to get his answer books rechecked to ensure that 'no portion of answer book is left unmarked'. Learned counsel for the petitioner has read out the meaning of word 'mark' from the Collins' English Dictionary as 'grade, evaluate, scholastic work' and from the Shorter Oxford Dictionary as 'unit of the numerical award given by a teacher or an examiner to a candidate in a competitive examination'. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that marking of papers requires application of mind. It is stated that on request the answer book of the petitioner was shown in which there were tickings and underlinings at some places as if the answer was incorrect though it was quite correct. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that there is no prohibitory rule debarring the respondent Board to get the answer book re‑examined and it has wrongly refused to do so on this plea, because everything is presumed to be permissible unless expressly prohibited by a law or a rule.

3. The grievance of the petitioner precisely is that he is not satisfied with the marking of his paper in which he has been awarded 39 marks out of

100. Now this is a matter entirely dependant upon the assessment of the examiner. Unless there is any express law or a rule to require that a paper can be got re‑evaluated on the asking of the student, the Board cannot be directed to do so. The fact that somewhere there were tickings or underlinings, is no proof of the fact that either the portion ticked or under lined was taken as correct or incorrect. The common experience will tell us that the examiners while going through the answer books tick mark wherever they feel inclined to. The tick marking has no weight of its own unless it explicitly or specifically points out that the examiner is putting the mark of approval or disapproval. The rule relied upon by the petitioner quoted above is not applicable to the facts. The case of the petitioner is not that some portion of the answer book was left unmarked but that marking was not as it should have been. But that is the function of the examiner and it is not possible to direct re‑evaluation of the answer book unless there is glaring and patent illegality or arbitrariness because otherwise there will be no end of re‑assessment as no two examiners award the same marks nor is that possible expect perhaps in exact sciences like Mathematics or Physics. The dissatisfaction of the petitioner that he had been awarded less marks than he deserved, may be genuine but that is a hazard which each student accepts when he appears in an examination. An element of chance cannot be ruled out regarding the number of marks a student gets because uniformity of award in non‑exact subjects is not possible. Answer to historical, philosiphical or language question papers will invariably be evaluated differently at different time by each .of the examiner. Therefore, to ask for accuracy or exactness in the marking is asking for the moon. No case is made out for interference by this Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.

4. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed in limine. S. A. H. Petition dismissed.