2004 PLP 889 (CLC)

Syed Mohsin Abbas for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd April, 2003. The petitioner appeared in the F. E. L. First Annual Examination, 1991 but could not pass Papers Nos.I and VI. He again appeared in the F.E.L. Supplementary Examination, 1992 held in April, 1994 in the aforesaid papers, cleared Paper‑VI but was awarded 30 marks in Paper‑I (Jurisprudence) and was, thus, declared having failed. On his written application, the Vice‑Chancellor, acting under Regulation No.23 of the Calendar of the University of the Punjab, 1990, asked Professor Dil Muhammad Malik to re‑evaluate Paper‑I of the petitioner. His re‑evaluation report, dated 22‑7‑1995 is on the record, according to which, the petitioner was found entitled to 40 marks, the minimum required pass marks in the said paper. However, according to the letter, dated 12‑3‑1996, signed by Mr. Muhammad Bashir (the then Secretary to the Vice‑Chancellor), purporting to be under direction of the Vice Chancellor, Professor Dr. C.M. Hanif, Principal, Punjab University Law College, Lahore was asked to re‑evaluate the answer book of the petitioner in Paper‑I. His report dated 18‑3‑1996 is on the record, according to which the petitioner was found entitled to 38 marks in Paper‑I. On the basis of the aforesaid evaluations the office of the Vice‑ Chancellor found that the petitioner was entitled to 39 marks (average of the two evaluations) and thus, failed in Paper‑I by one Mark. It may be noted that the above facts have been gathered from the original record which was produced by the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the exercise of sending paper‑I of the petitioner to Dr. C.M. Hanif was not bona fide as once re‑evaluation under the order of the Vice‑Chancellor was done by Professor Dil Muhammad, it ought to have been accepted. According to him, the petitioner has been a student leader, has been involved in a murder case and, therefore, the second re‑evaluation was mala fide. He maintains that under the order of this Court he was allowed to provisionally appear in the LL.B. Examination, although it was directed that the result of the petitioner will not be announced yet his result was declared, he passed LL.B. Examination, his result card and provisional certificate were issued by the University of the Punjab on the basis of which he got enrolment as an Advocate and is practicing for the last five years. Reliance was placed on University of Punjab through Vice Chancellor, Lahore and another v. Mrs. Ruhi Farzana and 3 others 1996 SCMR 263.

3. Syed Mohsin Abbas, Advocate, on the other hand contends that the Vice‑Chancellor could direct second re‑evaluation and, therefore, no exception could be taken to the result of the petitioner of Paper‑I, on the basis of the two re‑evaluations.

4. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Perusal of the letter, dated 12‑3‑1996 gives an impression that the Vice‑Chancellor was not even aware that re evaluation has already been done by Professor Dil Muhammad under his order and according to his re‑evaluation, the petitioner had 40 marks in Paper‑I. The record produced before me does not show that the re evaluation of Professor Dil Muhammad was not acceptable or was discarded by an order passed by the Vice‑Chancellor. The re‑evaluation having been done by Professor Dil Muhammad, the University Authorities, could not suo motu, direct another re‑evaluation by Dr. C.M. Hanif.

5. Reference may be made to Shereen Masood v. University of the Punjab through the Vice‑Chancellor, Lahore 1985 CLC 2987. Incidentally the said case also involved a student of law. Her paper was re‑evaluated by the Dean of Faculty of Law and her marks were increased. Thereafter, not only the script of the petitioner but the whole bundle was sent by the University Authorities to a penal of two experts and her marks were reduced. This Court observed that the second exercise undertaken by the other expert was wholly unwarranted in law. The facts of the said case are quite similar to the facts of the present case. The judgment in the case so Shereen Masood, (supra) was noted by `the Honourable Supreme Court with approval in the case of the University of the Punjab (supra) and the following observations were made:‑‑ "Regulation 23 referred above contemplates re‑examination in exceptional cases and does not speak of second or third re examination. However, considering the seriousness of the case the Vice‑Chancellor can appoint more than one examiner for re evaluation. But to make this exercise honest, bona fide and transparent the examiners, (if more than one), should be named and appointed at the same time. He should not wait for the report of the first examiner and then appoint the second one. There may not be any bias or mala fide but, depending on facts as in the present one it may be viewed with suspicion."

6. The rule laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the abovesaid case was violated inasmuch as that the evaluation done by Professor Dil Muhammad Malik was dated 23‑7‑1995, while Dr. C.M. Hanif was directed to re‑evaluate the answer book of the petitioner vide letter, dated 12‑3‑1996 i.e. after more than 8 months of the first re evaluation and the record does not show any justification for another C evaluation by another examiner.

7. For what has been stated above, this writ petition is allowed and since the petitioner had minimum qualifying marks in Paper‑I, according to the first re‑evaluation, he shall be deemed to have passed the Supplementary F. E. L. Examination for the year, 1992. No order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑114/L Petition allowed.