1998CLC235 (PLP)

Through this Constitutional petition the petitioner has made the following prayer. "It is most humbly and respectfully prayed that the Result Card Annexure ' A'‑‑‑may kindly be declared illegal, unlawful and without lawful authority and the action of the respondents may also kindly be declared illegal and unlawful' and the petitioner may kindly be declared successful after awarding her grace mark and she may be allowed to appear in the next coming examination of M.A. Part‑II which is going to be held in the month of middle January, 1994. as requested in Annexure ' C' . It is further prayed that the re‑evaluation may kindly be ordered and the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be awarded one mark. It is further prayed that if any other relief deem fit may kindly be awarded to the petitioner against the respondents." Learned counsel in support of his contentions has relied upon decision of this Court in identical situation rendered in Writ Petition 7382 of 1990 titled Miss Seema Ajmal v. University of the Punjab. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed, the stance and has stated that the concession as envisaged under Regulation No.37 would only be attracted in case of Part‑II Examination. I have considered the contentions. I have noticed that through interim order dated 6‑12‑1993 the petitioner was allowed to participate in M.A. Part‑II Examination. Regulation No. 37 provides as under:‑‑ "

37. For the final declaration of the award of the results of the Master's degree examination, based on Part‑I and Part‑II Examinations, the Vice-Chancellor shall appoint a Board of Examiners comprising Convener of the Board of Studies concerned and between four to six examiners including at least one external examiner. The convener shall be the ex-?officio Chairman of the Board of Examiners. The Board shall have the power:‑‑ "to determine the class or failure of those candidates who are on the border line, i.e. they may in their discretion (a) award a higher class, by 5 marks or less, by adding additional marks necessary for the purpose, not exceeding 5 or (b) declare as successful a candidate, who is failing in one paper only or in the aggregate, by adding the number of marks by which he is failing up to a maximum of 5, provided that the Board may at its discretion divide the 5 marks between the paper and the aggregate if a candidate is failing in both, but the total number, of marks thus added should, in no case exceed 5; Provided that if the total number of marks already secured by the candidate exceed the minimum of the aggregate required, the additional marks given in the paper in which he is failing shall be deducted from his other papers to the extent that his aggregate thereby does not fall below the minimum required. " It is evident from its regulation that the Board of Examiners is empowered to consider the case of those candidates who are on the borderline. The petitioner in the present case has missed the bus just for want of one mark. She has already availed her last chance. Her case is not distinguishable from the earlier decision made in Writ Petition No.7382 of 1990. In this view of the matter it is directed that the case of the petitioner shall be placed before the Board of Examiners for sympathetic consideration for its decision in accordance with law and rules. There shall be no order as to cost in the circumstances. A.A./A‑173/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Petition accepted.