2004 PLP 892 (CLC)

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a student of M.B.B.S. in Nishtar Medical College, Multan, she passed her 1st Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination in 1st Annual, 2001. The petitioner appeared in the second professional examination in 1st Annual of 2002, she was declared successful in the paper of Forensic Medicine only while in other two subjects namely Pathology and Pharmacology, the petitioner was declared unsuccessful, she re‑appeared in the IInd Annual Examination of 2002 in the failing subjects, she has been declared successful in. the subject of Pathology while the petitioner has again been declared unsuccessful in the subject of Pharmacology (Theory) by obtaining 69/150 marks while she passed Pharmacology (Practical/Viva) by securing 83/150 marks. The petitioner initially deposited the fee and filed requisite form for rechecking of her answer sheet of Pharmacology Taper. After re‑checking of the said answer book, the petitioner was informed that her result in the said paper was correctly been compiled and declared. Thereafter, she filed Constitution Petition No.342 of 2003 praying therein that she in fact wanted re‑evaluation of the said paper. The Legal Advisor of the University gave statement that the petitioner has still time and if the petitioner makes an application for re‑evaluation, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. The petitioner accordingly made application and the said application was duly entertained, the respondent/Authority/Vice‑Chancellor rejected the application on the point that there is no strong ground to believe that the answer book of the petitioner has not been justly evaluated. Hence this Constitution petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was confident that this time she shall pass paper of Pharmacology as well but the possibility of some slip or marking without due care in the said paper cannot be ruled out, hence the order of the Vice‑Chancellor passed under Regulation No.23(b) is illegal and unwarranted by law hence be declared as void and without lawful authority and a direction be issued for re‑evaluation of the said paper.

4. On the other hand, the respondent/University has filed report and parawise comments and raised preliminary objection that petitioner has not only failed in Pharmacology Subject 2nd time but she has already been given grace marks in Forensic Medicine Paper and now she is not entitled to the grace marks in the Paper of Pharmacology and she has failed by 6 marks in the Theory. Further, submits that petitioner has neither alleged mala fide of her examiner of the said paper nor malice or biased mind towards her. Moreover, the petitioner has not impleaded the said examiner as party to this petition. It has further been argued that the Vice‑Chancellor himself has passed the order after looking into the answer sheet of the petitioner and could not find exceptional case where there is strong ground to believe that the same has not been justly evaluated.

5. Heard.

6. I had summoned the original answer sheet of the petitioner of Pharmacology Paper as well as the file wherein the order has been passed by the Vice‑Chancellor. The script has been shown to the petitioner/candidate to verify that it is her own handwritten paper and none of the part of her answer sheet has been left unmarked/unevaluated. The candidate present in Court has confirmed her handwriting as well as she has admitted that no part of her answer sheet has been left unevaluated. The petitioner unfortunately failed in the Theory Paper by, six marks in her 2nd attempt as well. There is no allegation of mala fide or biasedness in the mind of the examiner against the petitioner. The relevant provision reads as under:‑‑ Regulation No.23. (a) ........................................................................................ (b) the answer‑book is in the handwriting of the candidate himself. In exceptional cases, the Vice‑Chancellor may in his discretion, allow the answer‑book to be shown to the candidate or his guardian for verification of handwriting. This, however, shall not fetter the discretion of the Vice‑Chancellor to get a particular answer‑book or answer‑books re‑examined in exceptional cases where there is a strong ground to believe that the same have not been justly evaluated. "

7. The discretion of the Vice‑Chancellor to get a particular answer book remarked is available only in exceptional cases and there must exist strong ground for him to believe that the same has not been justly evaluated. The competent authority i.e. the Vice‑Chancellor has exercised the jurisdiction in accordance with law. No illegality or material irregularity has been pointed out to show that the Vice Chancellor/competent authority has exercised the jurisdiction vested in him in an arbitrary manner in violation of law laid don by the superior Courts.

8. In view thereof, there is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. M.A.W./A‑44/L Petition dismissed.