ORDER SPED SAJJAD HASSAN SHAH, J.---Wajahat, the petitioner by this constitutional petition prayed for directing the respondents Nos.1 to 3 for re-checking and remarking of paper of the subject namely Veterinary Epidemiology of 9th term of D.V.M examination through some independent and impartial examiner or by any other mean deemed proper by the Court.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioner is regular student of final year of D.V.M College, Gomal University, D.I.Khan. He appeared in 9th term examination held during March, 2010 but in above mentioned subject, less marks than his expectation, awarded in the paper cited above by the external examiner. The petitioner further claimed that in the said paper he has ably attempted all the questions. However, while evaluating the paper, the external examiner awarded the following marks: --
(1) Internal marks 5/8
(2) External marks 3/32
(3) Practical marks 24/40 The petitioner apprehended that he has been awarded only 3 marks out of 32 by the external examiner, which was tainted with mala fide, thus, the petitioner was awarded less marks than his entitlement. The petitioner applied for re-checking/reevaluation of said paper. The competent authority sent the paper to one Doctor A.D.Khan Khosa, District Livestock Officer, Layyah, who had marked the said paper. On the protest of the students, it was disclosed in writing by said external examiner that he could not check/mark the said papers as he was ailing and could not attend properly the marking of papers. He has shown his repentance, vide his letter available on the file, requested to the Vice-Chancellor that all the papers be re-checked through some other competent examiner so as to avoid the academic loss to the students. In view of said reply of the examiner, the Vice-Chancellor/competent authority has got re-checked the said paper by some other external examiner, but found no error requiring correction in the marks already awarded to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed the instant petition.
3. Respondents have filed the comments, wherein they have refuted the claim of petitioner and stated that the paper was checked at the first instance by an examiner approved by the authorities of University. Again, on the application of the petitioner, re-counting/re-checking of the cited paper was duly made, thus, found no error requiring any correction in marking. It is stated with reference to Regulation No.23, that the petitioner has already availed the remedy, whereafter he cannot ask for any further re-checking or reevaluation of the above cited paper.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents victimized the petitioner on account of their on grudge and animosity. However, the petitioner has attempted the disputed paper to the best of his abilities. The petitioner during the course of his study in D.V.M College of the respondents/University, being an efficient and hard-working student, got first division throughout his course of study but in the above cited paper, on account of inability and mala fide of the examiner, he has been awarded less marks, than his expectations. He further contended that the paper of the petitioner was not checked by the said examiner, it is provided in the Rules that the paper would be re-checked by the examiner who had already checked same paper. He prayed for re-checking and re-evaluation of the paper.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that, it is not provided in the Regulation for re- checking/ re-evaluating except the retotalling of the papers. He further contended that the competent authority, on the application of the petitioner, had already got checked the paper from the external examiner, but found no omission by the examiner, therefore, no re-checking/re- evaluation permissible under Regulation No.23 of Gomal University, D.I.Khan. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner had not applied within the prescribed period for the purpose of retotalling and rechecking of the paper, therefore, not entitled for the relief as prayed for.
6. Arguments of learned couns appearing on behalf of the parties considered and record carefully perused.
7. It appears from the perusal of the record that the petitioner applied for rechecking/re-counting vide application in the shape of printed form, as was maintained by the University for re-checking of the papers. The note cited at serial No.1 of the said application regarding re-checking, same to be allowed within the period of thirty days after declaration of result, however, in another form handed over 'o one Abdus Samad (petitioner in Writ Petition No.482 of 2010) showing twenty days for applying re-checking/re-counting of the papers, however, the stance of the competent authority is, it has already done, meaning thereby that they have condoned the delay, if any, caused in filing application.
8. As per Rules of the University, rechecking shall be referred to the examiner, who had already conducted the marking/ evaluating of papers and in case of his non-availability, the paper shall be referred to an examiner of integrity from the panel of examiners, of course, subject to the approval of the Vice-Chancellor. In this regard, Regulation 23(5) ibid reads as under:-- "Cases eligible for re-checking shall be referred to the concerned examiner by the Controller of Examinations. However, in case the concerned examiner is not available due to unavoidable circumstances (illness, death or outside country) the Controller of Examinations shall refer the case to an examiner of integrity from the approved panel of examiners subject to the approval of the Vice-Chancellor." acceded the request of the petitioner. Since the petitioner has not been informed in due course about re-checking/re-marking of the said paper, therefore, claimed that his paper, if refused to be checked by Dr. A.D. Khosa, may be sent to any of the examiner, mentioned in the list filed by the petitioner, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents not objected that those examiners are not at the panel maintained by University. Moreso, the respondents have not filed any counter- affidavit to rebut the declaration made by the petitioner in his affidavit. Since re-checking and re- evaluating is permissible under the Regulation ibid as same has been refused by authorized examiner, in such eventuality, the paper can be sent to anyone of the examiners out of the list filed by the petitioner.
9. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to refer the paper of Veterinary Epidemiology for re-checking/ re-evaluation to any of the examiner mentioned in the list provided by the petitioner, subject to the approval of the Vice-Chancellor.
The petitioner has fulfilled the requirements of re-checking and re-evaluating the paper, thus, as per the contention of the concerned authorities, same was referred to certain examiner for re- checking, as Dr. A.D. Khosa, who had initially checked the paper, shown his inability to re-check the same, to this effect the application was sent to the University, the copy whereof filed on the instant file. The petitioner has filed an affidavit declaring that the paper was not checked by said Dr. A.D.
Khosa. Assuming that the respondents have already referred for evaluation and re-checking, the paper of the petitioner, which shows that they have.