' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.--- This writ petition is directed against the interim order, dated 17-7-2006 passed by respondent No,2 directing the petitioner university to produce the answer books of respondent No,1 to determine whether the conditions mentioned in Regulation 7(vii)(a to f) of the University have been fulfilled.
2. Facts of the case are that Dr. Azeem-ud-Din Zahid, hereinafter to be referred as respondent No,1, appeared in 2nd Annual, 2005 examination for the qualification of Master in Public Health conducted by the petitioner-University and failed in two papers namely Public Health Policy and Management and Epidemiology. Being aggrieved respondent No,1 filed an application before the University apparently for re-checking, but said application was rejected vide order, dated 27-4- 2005, whereafter, respondent No,1 filed a complaint before Provincial Ombudsman, and during the course of proceedings, impugned order was passed directing production of said 'answer books for the purpose mentioned in the order itself.
3. Counsel for the parties have been heard and record appended herewith perused. It is contended on behalf of the University that no order directing production of answer books either by the Court or by respondent No,2 could be issued in view of the dictum of law laid down by the apex Court in the case reported as Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Saima Azad 1996 SCM R 676.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents controverts the contentions raised on behalf of petitioner by contending that said judgment is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the case referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner (supra), this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan by way of an interlocutory order directed the examiners of papers "A" and "B" to appear in Court along with answer books of the whole lot of examinees. Said order was challenged before the apex Court by the Board through civil appeal which was accepted by means of judgment referred to herein above holding that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution was not justified in summoning answer books of the whole lot of examinees in order to find out whether the examiners had carried out marking of numbers in case of examinee correctly or not. And that jurisdiction of this Court was principally meant for correcting jurisdictional error in the order and proceedings of Tribunal and executive authorities. It was further held that solemnity of educational institutions and process of examination could not be allowed to be sacrificed on the alter of expediency by allowing every student to challenge his result in a Court of law.
5. It may be noticed that in the said case, a student had raised the 'question of discrimination regarding fair evaluation of the papers claiming higher marks than awarded to her, and this Court had directed the examiners of paper "A" and "B" to appear in Court on the next date of hearing along with lot of answer books examined by the same examiners. In the instant case no such exercise is being undertaken.
6. Regulation as framed by the University perceive of an application by a student to the nominated functionary of the University to check whether every question attempted has been marked, and inadvertently no question had been left out and further to see whether there is any mathematical error in the computation of the final result. In the present case said application was filed and was rejected by the University.
7. The impugned order has been passed merely to ascertain that every question attempted has in fact been checked and marked, and there is no mathematical error in the tabulation of the total marks as is apparent from the impugned order itself. In these circumstances dictum of law referred to above, would not be deviated from. It is also difficult to accept that a functionary of the University can exercise the powers which cannot be exercised by respondent No,2, especially, when specific powers in this behalf have been conferred upon respondent No,2 by virtue of section 10(9) of the Punjab Office of the Ombudsman Act, 1997. Even otherwise, present petition is directed against an interlocutory order.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not persuaded to interfere in the matter. However, respondent No,2 may examine the papers in question for the aforesaid limited purpose only and strictly in accordance with the dictum of law laid down by the apex Court in the case reported as 1996 SCM R 676. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the above observations.