2009 SCMR 545 (PLP)
CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION — Petitioner Versus FARMANULLAH KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 SCMR 545 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Muhammad Qaim Jan Khan, |
| Parties | CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION — Petitioner Versus FARMANULLAH KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 SCMR 545 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 SCMR 545 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Muhammad Qaim Jan Khan,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 SCMR 545 (PLP) (CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION — Petitioner Versus FARMANULLAH KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The learned counsel submitted inter alia that under the Rules/Regulations of the University of Karachi, the re-evaluation/remarking of the answer books was not permissible. Reliance was placed on the case of Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another v. Ali Mir 1984 SCMR 433, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through its Chairman and another v. Mst. Salma Afroze and 2 others PLD 1992 SC 263, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Saima Azad 1996 SCMR 676 and Tahir Saeed Qureshi v. The Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha and 3 others 1996 SCMR 1872. Therefore, the impugned judgment, dated 25th of April, 2008 read with short order, dated 9-4-2008 contrary to the law laid down by this Court. The learned Advocate-on-Record for the respondent submitted that the re-assessment of the answer books was well-within the jurisdiction of the High Court as held in the case of Mst. Shakeela v. University of Peshawar PLD 2003 Pesh. 69.
Headnotes / Summary
Arts. 185(3) & 199
Constitutional petition
Order of High Court directing re-evaluation/re-marking/re-assessment of answer book of petitioner (student of University)
Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider, inter alia, validity of such order. Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another v. Ali Mir 1984 SCMR 433; Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through its Chairman and another v. Mst. Salma Afroze and 2 others PLD 1992 SC 263; Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Saima Azad 1996 SCMR 676 and Tahir Saeed Qureshi v. The Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha and 3 others 1996 SCMR 1872 and Mst. Shakeela v. University of Peshawar PLD 2003 Pesh. 69 ref.
Judgment & Decree
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.
The learned counsel submitted inter alia that under the Rules/Regulations of the University of Karachi, the re-evaluation/remarking of the answer books was not permissible. Reliance was placed on the case of Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another v. Ali Mir 1984 SCMR 433, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through its Chairman and another v. Mst. Salma Afroze and 2 others PLD 1992 SC 263, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Saima Azad 1996 SCMR 676 and Tahir Saeed Qureshi v. The Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha and 3 others 1996 SCMR 1872. Therefore, the impugned judgment, dated 25th of April, 2008 read with short order, dated 9-4-2008 contrary to the law laid down by this Court. The learned Advocate-on-Record for the respondent submitted that the re-assessment of the answer books was well-within the jurisdiction of the High Court as held in the case of Mst. Shakeela v. University of Peshawar PLD 2003 Pesh. 69.
2. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the above and other submissions of the learned counsel. Since a short point of law is involved, office is directed to fix the main appeal on the present record within a period of two months. However, the parties may file additional documents/concise statement, if necessary with the permission of the Court. C.M.A. No.162/K of 2008 Stay matter Subject to notice, the operation of the impugned judgment, dated 25th of April, 2008 and short order dated 9th April, 2008 shall remain suspended meanwhile. S.A.K./C-2/SC Leave granted.