TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Ali Abbas Khakhi petitioner was a student of M.A. (International Relations)
Session 2004-2006 (a two years course comprising four semesters) in the Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan. He took the examination of First Semester but could not pass in one subject (I.R.104). However, as per Examination Policy of the University he was allowed to repeat the same with the succeeding class. Since the petitioner maintained his Cumulative Grade Point Average above 2, therefore, he was promoted to Second Semester. He accordingly took examination of Second Semester but was declared fail in three subjects viz. IR-108, IR-109 and IR-110 and consequently his name was removed from the rolls of the Department. He made representation to the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University for re-evaluation of failing papers by the Committee on the ground that he had been deliberately failed by the examiners because they bore personal grudge against the petitioner but no heed was paid to his request. The petitioner then approached this Court through Constitutional Petition No.6375 of 2005 in which a direction was issued by this Court vide order, dated 31-10-2005 to the respondents to dispose of the applications of the petitioner either way. As a result of the direction issued by this Court, a Departmental Examination Committee was constituted by the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent- University consisting of a Professor, an Associate Professor and two Assistant Professors. The said Committee made its recommendation that marks awarded to the petitioner can be enhanced to the extent mentioned in the letter of the Committee. The same recommendations were approved by the Vice-Chancellor as a result of which the petitioner was declared pass in subject IR-108 but failed in the two remaining subjects i.e. IR-109 and IR-110. Being dissatisfied with the said re- evaluation of the Committee, the petitioner yet made another application to the Vice-Chancellor on the ground that the Departmental Committee constituted for the purpose did not comprise of Experts of the Subjects, therefore, the said Members were not able to accomplish the correct evaluation of the papers. The said application was not entertained by the Vice-Chancellor. Hence the same has been challenged through this constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the Committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor did not consist of Experts in the relevant Subjects papers of which were to be re- evaluated, therefore, their recommendations could not be treated as valid in the eye of law; that in the case of Muhammad Asif Raza, a student of the Department of Political Science an impartial Committee had been constituted to look into the matter whereas the petitioner has been meted out with discriminatory treatment by denial of re-evaluation of his papers from unbiased committee.
3. Conversely the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has inter alia contended that the petitioner failed in three subjects i.e. IR-108, IR-109 and IR-110 in which he received 42, 36 and 37 marks respectively. On the application of the petitioner a committee was constituted which after re-evaluation awarded 51 out of 100 marks in paper IR-108, 44 out of 100 marks in paper IR-109 and 42 out of 100 marks in paper IR-110. The passing marks were 50 out of 100 in each subject as such the petitioner passed only in one subject and remained failed in the other two subjects.
Further contended that under the Uniform Semester Rules of Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan notified vide No.99 Acad/Sem/Regu/3176, dated 14-6-2004 re-evaluation could only be done once which had been done in the case of the petitioner by the Committee comprising of Professor Dr. Syed Khawaja Alqma (Ph.D. U.K.) Chairman, Dr. Shehnaz Tariq, Associate Professor (Ph.D.), Mr. Fayyaz Ahmad Hussain Assistant Professor (M.Phil) and Mr. Yasir Sharif (M.A. With 8 years Post- Graduate Teaching experience) members. Further submits that no bias had been alleged against the Committee by the petitioner and that the decision of the Committee being final could not be challenged by the petitioner. Has relied on Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Saima Azad 1996 SCM R 676; Mureed Hussain v. Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan through Vice-Chancellor and 2 others 2005 YLR 1556 and Muqarrab Akbar v. Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan through Registrar and 2 others 2004 CLC 665 to assert that the matters relating to re- evaluation could not be urged before this Court in constitutional jurisdiction. Further stated that no discrimination as alleged by the petitioner had been committed by the respondents as in the case of Asif Raza, a student relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner was failed in one subject and after re-evaluation he was declared successful. The petitioner having been granted one chance as per the rules of re-evaluation by the respondents could not be declared successful in two subjects although extra marks were given as such the petitioner had no case and the petition was liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and available record gone through with their assistance.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any infringement of law on the basis of which this constitutional petition could be filed. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that in the Rules of Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan there was no provision regarding second re-evaluation of papers. The learned counsel after conceding the aforesaid point, confined his argument to the point of discrimination only and urged that one Asif Raza a student of the University on re-evaluation of his papers was awarded one more mark and had been declared successful. I am afraid this argument of the petitioner is also misconceived inasmuch as the question of discrimination does not arise particularly as the grievance of the petitioner stood redressed by the respondents by constituting a committee of senior faculty members for the purpose of re-evaluation of his papers.
6. It would not be out of place to mention that the petitioner had previously voiced his grievance before this Court through Writ Petition No.6375 of 2005 and having once agitated the matter before this Court, the petitioner could not re-agitate the same through the instant writ petition. In any case the sole argument of the petitioner regarding discrimination cannot be determined in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court as the same pertains to disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into in these proceedings.
7. In view of what has been noticed and discussed above, I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.