1. ' Farmanullah Khan Advocate a practicing lawyer at Karachi had Appeared in LL.M. Examination held by University of Karachi through Government Islamia Law College in the year, 2007. Result was announced on 27-11-2007, the petitioner was declared unsuccessful in two papers, (i) Comparative Study of World Constitution and human rights, (ii) Human rights.
2. ' The petitioner applied for re-checking/re-evaluation of two papers, verbally informed by the Controller of Examination, University of Karachi that the marks in the scripts were found correct and there was no mistake in totaling.
3. ' On behalf of the respondent para-wise comments were filed admitting that the petitioner is a registered student of LL. M. He has appeared in the examination in two papers namely Shariat Law and Comparative Study of Islamic and Western Jurisprudence, failed in two papers as stated above. On petitioner's application and upon retotaling was allowed whereas under rule 16(2) of the Code of University an inquiry cannot be held into the correctness of the results which is reproduced herein extenso:-- "Rule 16(ii) applications from candidates at the university examinations for an inquiry into the correctness of their results, must be accompanied in each case by a fee of Rs,20 for each subject.
4. No such application will be entertained unless forwarded by the Head of Institution from which the candidate appeared, except in the case of external candidates whose applications shall be submitted directly to the Controller of Examinations. The inquiry shall deal only with the correctness of the results and shall not include re-examination of the candidate's answer-book. No such application will be accepted unless it reaches the University office within 30 days from the date of publication of the results."
5. ' The University of Karachi cannot encourage the student in a sympathetic manner in connection with the solved papers by way of rechecking and re-examination which is not permissible under University Code, tantamount to open the Pandora box thereby every student will refer to the steps not in consonance with the University Act, 1972.
6. ' We have considered the arguments advanced at bar, gone through the comments submitted by the respondents in order to justify its refusal for rechecking reevaluation of the papers of the petitioners, The institution of the respondent is run under the Code in order to create academic her money in the institution with intent to avoid any disturbance in the internal assessment so much so to protect aggrieved student on account of neglected attitude of the academic institution to avoid serious allegations and foul play. The fate of the aggrieved student cannot be left on the mercy of those involved in reckless dispensation of duties.
7. Mr. Moin Azhar learned counsel for respondent contended that rechecking and re-evaluation of the marks is contravention of the University Code. The plea of the petitioner is misconceived as the matter in writ petition cannot be permitted to create barrier on the basis of wrong committed for causing justice to a student by putting his career in jeopardy. In case of Ms. Shakeela v. University of Peshawar (PLD 2003 Peshawar 69) it was held that under the University Act itself as the preamble explains the basic and fundamental obligations of the respondents is to impart education and not to impede the same, the present case is one of those very rare cases wherein despite of such barring provision relief as prayed for cannot be refused otherwise this Court will endorse an action which is in disregard of law as well as principle of justice, fair play and rules of propriety and that too at the cost to fundamental rights of a citizen which course we would not permit at any cost whatsoever because the centuries old principle which is old as hills are that late justice prevails though the heaven would fall. Therefore, such objection is absolutely unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
8. We are convinced that the rule initiated in case referred supra as well in case of Abdul Hakim 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 reevaluated and re-assessed as there is no alternate answer available in the circumstances to meet the ends of justice for saving the interest of the petitioner.
9. ' For the above reasons 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 World Constitutions and Human Rights, through a highly qualified person of outstanding academic curricula for reassessm 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 the 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.