TARIQ JAVAID, J. - The petitioner has assailed the assessment of her B. Sc, examination, It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner appeared in B. Sc, first annual examination 2008 and secured 45 marks out of 200 and was failed. She reappeared in the supplementary examination and got 27 marks out of 200 and again failed, In 3rd attempt the petitioner could get only 7 marks out of 200 by taking supplementary examination 2009.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had put in extra-ordinary hard- work in the 3rd attempt and there was no occasion for her for having such a low result as such she apprehends some mala fide on the part of the respondents, It is also contended that under all fairness the petitioner improved from her previous attempts and the grant of 7 marks was either result of negligence on the part of examiner while checking the answer sheets or low marks have suppreptitiously been given with mala fide intention to fail the petitioner. However, no particulars of mala fide has been asserted against any of the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Farmanullah Khan v. Controller of Examination, Karachi University (2010 M LD 85) and contends that re- evaluation of examination papers was perfectly admissible under the rules, as there is no alternate answer available in the circumstances to meet the ends of justice for saving the interest of the petitioner. Learned Counsel also relied upon Ms. Shakeela v. University of Peshawar (PLD 2003 Peshawar 69) and Abdul Hakeem Hashmi v. Federal Public Service Commission (PLD 2002 SC 404). Following Ms. Shakeela v. University of Peshawar (PLD 2003 Peshawar 69) re-evaluation of answer sheets were allowed. The reasons given for re-evaluation was that fundamental obligation of the University was to grant education and not to impede the same and relief could not be refused as the refusal would amount to denial of justice, fair play and rule of propriety. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below:- "We are convinced that the rule initiated in case referred supra as well in case of Abdul Hakeem Hashmi v. Federal Public Service Commission (PLD 2002 SC 404), are applicable to the present case. We are convinced that answer sheet of the petitioner with regard to his performance and marks given would be re-evaluated an re-assessed as there is no alternate answer available in the circumstances to meet the end of justice for saving the interest of the petitioner.
For the above reason we allowed writ petition vide Short order, dated 9.4.2008 and directed the respondent to get re-examined the answer sheets of the papers of Comparative Study of Word Constitutions and Human Rights, through a highly qualified person of outstanding academic curricula for re-assessm ent of marks strictly on the basic of the merits. We also direct that the papers referred above be sent to Justice (Retd.) Dr. Ghous Muhammad with direction to do justice the petitioner in all probability without being influenced from marks already given by the previous examiner. This exercise should be conducted within the period of one month and result thereof be communicated to the petitioner without fail. Writ petition stands accepted accordingly.
3. Notices were issued to the respondent, who have entered appearance and maintained that the examination papers were re-checked. All of the questions have been marked, the petitioner secured 6 marks in one paper and only 1 mark in the other; therefore, no illegality has been done by the examiner, It is further contended that under the University Statute the answer book cannot be reevaluated. Reliance has been placed on Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Lahore v.
Saima Azad (1996 SCM R 676) and Mureed Hussain v. Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan through Vice-Chancellor and 2 others (2005 YLR 1556).
4. The answer sheets were produced in Court and it was observed that all the answer in the answer sheets were crossed as incorrect as those were according to the estimation of examiner not worth giving any marks. No answers were left unchecked. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Saima'^Azad (1996 SCM R 676) observed that if request for re-evaluation was accepted it will lead to dangerous consequences, as it will open the door and every unsuccessful candidate to challenge the result of his examination in Court thus involving the educational institutions into unending and unethical litigation and bringing the whole system of examination in vogue, at stake, It was held that ' the solemnity of educational institutions and process of examination could not be sacrificed on the alter of expediency. Therefore, the relief was not granted to the examinee. Similar question was raised in Mureed Hussain v. Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan through Vice- Chancellor and 2 others (2005 YLR 1556), it was observed that for re-evaluation of answer books the candidate had to display ex-facie cogent grounds for such action. Every paper of every candidate could not be allowed to be re-evaluated merely at the discretion and whims of a candidate otherwise said practice, if allowed would open flood gates of applications and the sanctity of marking which has got at least initial presumption of correctness, would be tarnished.
5. In the present case no specific allegation of mala fide has been alleged against any of the respondents. The answer books have been seen none of the questions was left unchecked therefore, it cannot be said that there was an error of omission while granting marks to the petitioner. The question of re-evaluation cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction and respectfully following the judgment cited as Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Lahore v. Saima Azad (1996 SCM R 676). I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made of a case for re-evaluation of the answer books. The sharp decline in marks awarded to her is visible as in the first attempt she secured 45 marks, in second attempt she obtained 27 marks and in third attempt she secured 7 marks which means that the petitioner might have not been taking interest in this subject. However, no case for interference of this Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction is made of. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to cost.