2005 PLP 1556 (YLR)

Petitioner, a student of law, who got admission in Central Law College, Multan, had passed his first year and second year examinations in L.L.B., but while appearing in third year examination, could not pass the paper of administrative law. He attempted for the second chance but remained unsuccessful to gain required marks. So, this caused him dissatisfaction and disturbance. Believing this endeavour of Paper-V of administrative law to have been successfully accomplished, he has approached this Court to get the re-evaluation of that paper performed from Bahauddin Zakariya University, by praying for issuance of a direction from this Court, to the aforesaid University for the above said purpose.

2. Learned counsel appearing on his behalf has argued that the petitioner had worked hard and was to pass the above noted paper but he was failed due to table marking got done by the University from junior Advocates, who were not experienced enough to examine the papers and to allocate the correct marks. For the acceptance of this writ, he has referred to order dated 29-9-2004, passed in Writ Petition No.4079 of 2004 Muhammad Jehanzeb Khan v. Bahauddin Zakariya University and three others in which the Vice-Chancellor was directed to look into the matter. He has also placed reliance on a case of Malik Muhammad Awais Khalid v. Vice-Chancellor, Bahauddin Zakariya University (Writ Petition No.4456 of 2001), in which remarking was directed to the Vice-Chancellor to be made of Papers I and III of the writ petitioner of the above noted writ petition on 5-7-2001.

3. Reply to the writ petition in the shape of parawise comments was submitted by respondents in which the plea was taken by the respondents that the petitioner had not levelled any charge of criminality, irresponsibility, fraud or abuse of any regulations in marking the papers by the Examiner and the Examiner having not been made party to the writ petition, the writ petition was not maintainable. The petitioner had applied for rechecking of the disputed Paper-V of L.L.B. Part-II, which was duly admitted by University and his case was processed in accordance with Regulation No.23 of the Regulations relating to conduct of examination and no mistake was found upon rechecking in the marking, etc. So, the petitioner was informed by the University through registered Letter No.179/SEC, dated 12-11-2004 that the competent authority/ Vice-Chancellor had decided the case of the petitioner and had found no ground to re-evaluate the paper of the petitioner. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the re-evaluation of the paper cannot be done in routine. The petitioner has to show some cogent reasons, which must disclose the fraud or abuse of regulation in marking the papers by Examiner otherwise his request cannot be acceded to. He has placed reliance upon Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Mst. Salma Afroze and 2 others PLD 1992 SC

263. He has opposed the prayer by stating that marking of answer books is a technical job, which is being undertaken by the University through experts of the subjects. The list of experts is proposed and sanctioned by the Board of studies after careful examination of the persons entered into the list and this Court has got no jurisdiction to order re-examination/re-evaluation of answer books unless there is proved any violation of rules/regulations. He has referred to Abdul Hakim Hashmi v. Federal Public Service Commission and 8 others 2002 SCMR

504. In such cases High Court does not interfere, for that purpose, he has referred to Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Saima Azad 1996 SCMR

676. In re-evaluation of answer book, the High Court is not to issue direction for re-evaluation as examiners are the best judges of the performance of the candidates qua the answers of questions, by a candidate. He also takes support from Muhammad Haseeb v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore 2001 MLD

751. Referring to the decision reported in Miss Rukhsana Soomro and others v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Larkana, Sindh and others 2000 MLD 145, it is stated by the learned counsel that in assessment and marking of answer books, the High Court would be reluctant and extra-cautious in extending its Constitutional jurisdiction, to the prayer. It has further been stated by the learned counsel that table marking is being done to ensure just, fair and transparent marking of the answer books, so there was no illegality committed by the University.

4. After considering the facts and the case law on the subject and hearing the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that for re-evaluation of answer book of any paper, the petitioner has to display ex facie cogent grounds for that re-evaluation. Every paper of every student cannot be allowed to be re-evaluated merely at the discretion and whims of a candidate otherwise this practice, if allowed would open flood gate of applications and the sanctity of the marking, which has got at least initial presumption of correctness, would be tarnished. If the petitioner does not come forward with some convincing ground for re-evaluation of his paper, his request cannot be considered by this Court as well as by the University. Mere vague, ambiguous and cloudy allegations cannot be allowed to challenge the correctness of marking. The petitioner, in the instant case having availed of a remedy of re-marking of the disputed answer book and having failed in that effort, cannot be now allowed again to get re-evaluation of the answer book. It is settled law that vague and unclear, unspecified allegations cannot take place the birth of proof of a particular allegation. The perusal of the contents of the writ petition shows that no specific and particular allegation of incorrect marking have been asserted with the name of examiner, in the writ petition.

5. As regards the table marking of papers the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to refer any rule, law, statute or regulations, providing such course, which has apparently been adopted by the University for expeditious and speedy marking of answer book through a fair and transparent manner and method. No specific and particular event in such table marking have been pointed out by the petitioner, which should call the interference into the administration and management of the affairs of the University relating to conduct of examination. So, I do not consider it a fit case to be granted approval from this Court for issuance of a direction for re-evaluation of petitioner's paper.

6. The order dated 29-9-2004 passed in Writ Petition No.4079 of 2004 Muhammad Jehanzeb Khan v. Bahauddin Zakariya University and 3 others cannot be applied to the case of this petitioner, because in that case re-checking/re-marking was never made and even in that case, Vice-Chancellor was referred the matter to look into it but no specific or particular order was passed by this Court to re-evaluate. The case of Malik Muhammad Awais Khalid v. Vice-Chancellor, Bahauddin Zakariya University has proceeded on its own facts wherein the criteria for the appointment of an Examiner, qualification and experience was challenged. In the instant case no specific allegation of the incorrect/wrong marking regarding the examiner, who had examined, scrutinized and marked the disputed paper of the petitioner, was named in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M-884/L Petition dismissed.