1997 PLP 87 (MLD)

The brief facts are that the petitioner appeared as a private candidate in the B.A. Annual Examination of 1992 under Roll No.48507 in two subjects: (i) English and (ii) Islamiyat. The result of the students was declared, but that of the petitioner was withheld with the remarks "Later on". Initially he was told that the result was kept ' later on' for non‑payment of fee, but after the petitioner produced the clearance certificate in this regard, he was informed that his result was kept 'later on' because his Answer Books of English Paper ' B' and Islamiyat Paper ' A' were not received from the examiner. The petitioner made various representations to the respondents for declaration of his result. Without waiting for the declaration of his result, the petitioner appeared in the remaining subjects during the Second Annual Examination of 1993 under Roll No.35281. He scored 62 marks out of 100 in Pakistan Studies; 113 marks out of 200 in Education 'and 66 marks out of 100 in Persian, as is evident from the failure statement (Annexure "H"). Ultimately, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking direction to the respondents to declare the petitioner successful with 60 per cent. marks, or, in the alternative, for production of the Answer Books of Papers English "B" and Islamiyat "A" of the petitioner.

2. On 5‑10‑1994 this Court directed respondent No.2 to submit parawise comments. The comments were not submitted. However, on 18‑12‑1995 the Deputy Controller (Secrecy Branch) of the respondent University appeared alongwith the relevant record, i.e. the Register containing original result sheets and the award list of the B.A. Annual Examination of 1992. He stated that the award list was prepared by the examiner who had marked the Answer Books and that on the basis of the award list the result sheet was compiled and entered in the Register and that on the basis of such 'result sheet' and 'award list' the final result of the candidates was announced. According to him, the result of the petitioner in English Paper "B" and Islamiyat Paper "A" was not declared for the reason that the same were received late; the result of Islamiyat Paper "A" was received on 29‑12‑1993 and that of English Paper "B" was received on 29‑11‑1992. Thereafter, complete result of the petitioner was finally announced by the University in the month of June, 1995, according to which the petitioner had obtained 84 marks in Islamiyat Paper "A" and 33 marks in English Paper "B".

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the Answer Books of English Paper "B" and Islamiyat Paper ,"A" were lost, the petitioner is entitled to 60 per cent. average marks in accordance with Regulation No.6 of the University Regulations. However, in the same breath, learned counsel prays for average marks only in English Paper "B" and not in Islamiyat Paper "A" for the reason that in Islamiyat Paper "A" he has already obtained 84 marks, which is more than 60 per cent. average marks.

4. It will be useful to reproduce Regulation No.6 of the University Regulations hereunder: ‑‑ "If a candidate's paper is lost after having been received by the Superintendent of the Examination Centre or by one of his assistance, and if he passes in all other subjects of the examination, he may be required to appear in that one paper which is lost on a date fixed by the Controller of Examinations, and if he obtains pass marks he shall be deemed to have passed the examination. In case of dispute as to whether a candidate's paper was duly received or not, the finding of the Controller of Examinations, subject to the approval of the Vice -Chancellor, shall be final: Provided that if an answer book/s is/are lost before or after evaluation, average of the marks obtained by the candidate in other papers in which he has appeared shall be awarded to him in the said paper. The candidate shall, however, have the option either to avail the average of the marks or to reappear in the paper: Provided further that the benefit of grant of average given to candidates in cases of rechecking of; declaration of their results, if their answer‑book/s is/are lost of re‑checking. They will, however, have the option to reappear paper/s in the next examination, if otherwise eligible. The candidate will also be allowed to claim refund of fee for re‑checking. "

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a reported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in University of the Punjab v. Akbar Ali 1995 SCMR

537. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:‑‑ "There is no material on record to show at what stage the paper was lost. However, it is established that respondent did appear and handed over the paper to the Superintendent otherwise he would have been marked absent or it would have been reported that the answer book was not submitted and in that case he would have been declared failed in the subject. It was, therefore, to be presumed in ordinary course that the paper was lost somewhere at a later stage. And such information could only be furnished by the petitioner. The respondent was rightly found by the learned High Court that he could not be blamed for all this. As such the proviso was applicable to the respondent's case The facts of the present case are somewhat different from the precedent case. In the present case, the Answer Books were received by the respondent University alongwith the original award list on the basis whereof the result‑sheet was prepared and final result compiled and announced. The loss of the Answer Books thereafter was of no significance. Regulation No.6 of the University Regulations in these circumstances was not attracted to the facts of the present case.

6. As stated by the Deputy Controller (Secrecy Branch), the Answer Books of both these papers were received by them duly marked by the Examiner, alongwith the award list prepared by the Examiner. On the basis of the award list the result sheet was prepared and thereafter final result was compiled and announced. In this situation, Regulation No.6 does not strictly apply to the present case. The Answer Books were not lost until the time the result was prepared by the University. Besides, the award list, which was prepared by the Examiner himself, shows the marks obtained by each candidate in the respective papers. The original award list was seen by me, which showed that the petitioner obtained 84 marks out of 100 in Islamiyat Paper "A" and 33 marks out of 100 in English Paper "B". Thus, in the presence of the original award list, which is accepted by the petitioner also to the extent of Islamiyat Paper "A", the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner for the award of 60 per cent. average marks in English Paper "B", has lost its weight. The petitioner cannot be allowed to pick and choose in this manner. According to the petitioner, even the Answer Book of Islamiyat Paper "A" was also lost, but as he is shown in the award list to have obtained more than 60 per cent. marks, the result in Islamiyat Paper "A" is accepted by the petitioner as correct and genuine. There is no reason why the award list of the marks given in English Paper "B" be not accepted as correct and genuine.

7. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, the Writ Petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. Announced on 11‑1‑1996. A.A./A‑2/L Petition dismissed.