1987 PLP 836 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondent (in both petitions). Date of hearing, 4th February, 1987. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑These are two petitions for special leave to appeal by 'the University of the Punjab and the Controller of Examinations from the judgment and order dated 21‑12‑1986 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a direction was given to the petitioners to declare Farooq Ahmad and Mazhar Iqbal, respondents in the two petitions, as having passed the First Professional B. Pharmacy Supplementary Examination, 1984.

2. Farooq Ahmad and Mazhar Iqbal took the aforementioned examination which was held in January 1986. To begin with their results were held up but ultimately they were declared to have failed in the examination. The examination was taken in five subjects. They had passed in all the subjects except the one relating to Pharma‑Bio- Chemistry. In this subject they both had obtained 95 out of 200 marks. The minimum marks required to pass in this subject were

100. Thus, they both failed by 5 marks. However, in the aggregate for all the subjects they had received more than 50$ marks. They made representations to the petitioners for being allowed the benefit of 5 grace marks as provided in Regulation No.2 of the Regulations relating to the examination in question but their representations were rejected. They then invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the decision of the petitioners on their representations.

3. Before the High Court the only question raised by the parties related to the interpretation of Regulation No.2, ibid. This Regulation reads as follows:‑ "The minimum number of marks required to pass this examination shall be 50$ in theory and practical examination separately and in each subject:. Provided further that a candidate shall be deemed to have passed if he (a) fails in one subject (theory and practical) by a margin of 5 marks, (b) fails in more than one subject by a margin which can be made up by distribution of five marks over the subject/papers in which he fails when he takes the examination either in all the subjects at one time, or having appeared and failed in a part of the examination, re‑appears in the subjects in which he had not passed provided further that he will be granted this concession only once in this examination. The number of marks by which he is short shall not, however, be physically added, " The High Court was of the view that by virtue of clause (a) of the proviso, the petitioner should be deemed to have passed the examination.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we are of the view that the High Court has correctly interpreted the regulation in question. The case of the petitioners was covered by clause (a) of the proviso and as such they should have been deemed to have passed the examination. We would accordingly dismiss, these petitions. M.I/U‑3/S. Petitions dismissed.,