' MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J.---This appeal is directed against the order dated 25-7-2005 passed by the learned Judge-in-Chamber dismissing the constitutional petition filed by the appellant for evaluation of his script/answer book.
2. The appellant claims to possess the qualification of B.Sc. And M.B.A. He was a student of L.L.B.
Part-III having passed the first two parts. Despite availing all the chances permissible under the rules of the University, he could not secure the pass marks in Paper-III(Cr.P.C.) He filed a constitutional petition for re-evaluation of his Paper-III (Cr.P.C.) answer book but remained unsuccessful.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant while placing reliance on Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, through its Chairman and another v. Mst. Salma Froze and 2 others PLD 1992 SC 263 contended that this Court should itself examine and in the next stage get the answer books examined after annulling the award of marks. Learned counsel also placed reliance on an order of the Honourable Supreme Court passed on C.M.A. No,1270 of 2002 in C.A. No,1257 of 2001 directing to re-evaluate all the final year answer books.
' Conversely the learned Legal Advisor of the respondent University submitted that there is no provision in the Calendar of the University for re-evaluation of the answer books. He also relied on Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, through its Chairman and another v. Mst.
Salma Froze and 2 others (supra).
3-A. We have gone through the impugned order, the relevant provisions of the rules/regulations of the University, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties and their arguments. Regulation 23 of the Calendar of the University of the Punjab, Volume-I, 2002 regarding re-evaluation of the answer books stands amended. It is clearly stated therein that the Vice- Chancellor or an officer authorized by him may, on the receipt of an application, satisfy himself that the result of the applicant has been correctly compiled and declared provided that it will not include re-evaluation of candidate's answer book. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no such power in the statutes, rules/regulations of the respondent University.
However, he states that the Honourable Supreme Court in the case Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, through its Chairman and another v. Mst. Salma Froze and 2 others (supra) observed that the Court itself should re-examine and in the next stage get the answer books examined after annulling the award and the marks. The contention of the learned counsel has no merit. The Honourable Supreme Court observed as under:-- "If the Court finds ex facie that there is good ground made out for further inquiry in terms of Muhammad Fazil Khan's case PLD 1975 SC 331, it should itself examine and in the next stage get the answer books examined after annulling the award of marks on grounds fully established."
' The Court has to see whether there are grounds for further inquiry in terms of Muhammad Fazil Khan's case to undo fraud, perversity and manifest abuse of authority which is not the case in the instant appeal. In the case of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Saima Azad 1996 SCM R 676 the Honourable Supreme Court observed as under:-- "The marking of numbers on answer book is a technical job performed by experts which the High Court is not expected to undertake in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution. The jurisdiction of High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is principally meant for correcting the jurisdictional error in the order and proceedings of tribunals and executive authorities. This jurisdiction cannot be invoked for obtaining decisions on merits which the functionaries alone are entitled to take under the law."
' In the case of Tahir Saeed Qureshi v. The Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha and 3 others 1996 SCM R 1872 it was also held that no evaluation of the scripts can be made. The appellant's case is that his script/answer book has been under-evaluated. We have already held that there is no Rule/Regulation under which direction for re-evaluation can be issued.
Following the dictum of Honourable Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases we cannot pass any such order.
4. In view of the above we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Judge-in-Chamber, therefore, dismissed this appeal with no order as to costs.