' MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.--- With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties it is proposed to decide the instant petition as a Pacca matter on the basis of the available record.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent-University despite opportunity having been granted has declined either to file a report and parawise comments and/or a written statement and states that he shall rely upon oral submissions and the documents submitted on 26-9-2014.
3. The facts leading to filing of the instant petition are to the effect that the petitioner is desirous of joining the medical profession, therefore, he applied to the respondent-University to take the Medical/ Dental Colleges' Admission Test, 2014 ("the Entrance Test") to be held on 31-8-2014. The petitioner was issued an Admittance Card under Roll No,0014390 whereby he was informed that his examination center is situated at the University of Education, Lower Mall, Lahore. On 31-8-2014, i.e, the date of the Entrance Test when the petitioner reached the said examination center he found out that the Roll. Number allotted to him was not included in the list of candidates eligible to take the Entrance Test at the examination center. The petitioner, therefore, contacted the invigilation staff and was informed that his examination center was in fact the Government Central Model School, Lower Mall, Lahore. The petitioner consequently went to the latter examination center and took the Entrance Test. The result of the Entrance Test has been announced and the petitioner has not scored marks according to his expectations.
4. The instant petition has, therefore, been brought on the premise that due to the mistake on the part of the respondent-University the petitioner went to the wrong examination center and although the petitioner was belatedly directed to go to correct examination center by the invigilation staff yet precious time was lost in the process resulting in the petitioner being stressed out, as a consequence, his performance suffered. The petitioner filed a complaint before the respondent-University for redress of his grievance but no response was received. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed as under:--- "In view of the above submissions, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be accepted and appropriate directions may kindly be issued to the concerned quarters to redress the genuine grievance of the petitioner by accommodating him in any Government Medical College by awarding him grace marks, keeping in view his previous academic performance, in the larger interest of justice."
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Policy/Procedure/Guidelines/Rules/Regulations for taking the Entrance Test have been set out in detail in the Information Booklet ("the Booklet") issued by the respondent-University vis-a-vis the Entrance Test. Clause 15 of the Booklet states that candidates are required to be present at the designated examination center before 8:00 a.m. As the Entrance Test begins at 9:00 a.m. Sharp.
Candidates are, therefore, required to reach their respective examination centers at least an hour prior to 9:00 a.m. The examination centers are to be sealed/closed at 8:15 a.m. Where after no candidate is to be allowed to enter the examination center. Moreover, no candidate is allowed to enter the examination center without showing the Admittance Card issued by the respondent- University .
6. Further submits that the petitioner reached the examination center mentioned in his Admittance Card according to the above schedule. Upon reaching there he was surprised to learn that. His Roll Number was not included in the list of candidates eligible to take the Entrance Test at that center.
The petitioner made inquiries from one of the invigilators who told the candidate to wait so that the requisite inquiries can be made. The petitioner was made to wait till 8:50 a.m. Even though the petitioner kept on requesting the invigilation staff to sort out his problem but to no avail. Eventually one of the invigilators informed the petitioner at around 8:50 a.m. That his correct examination center is the Government Central Model School, Lower Mall, Lahore. The invigilator wrote the necessary information on a piece of paper and handed it over to the petitioner and directed him to go to the correct examination center. Submits that even though the petitioner was relieved to receive the information and immediately made his way to the correct examination center, however, during the period the petitioner had to wait he was mentally upset and severely stressed out which condition was compounded by the fact that the petitioner was already suffering from exam 'nerves. However, as directed the petitioner went to the Government Central Model School and reached there at around 9:10 a.m. The petitioner was allowed to sit for the Entrance Test by the invigilation staff. The petitioner began answering the question paper at around 9:15/9:20 a.m. Thus very precious 15/20 minutes were wasted due to the wrong information having been given to the petitioner by the respondent-University
7. Contends that the petitioner was already stressed out and due to the delay in starting to answer the examination paper, which delay was entirely due to the respondent-University's fault, the petitioner became further stressed thus his performance suffered. As a consequence, the petitioner was unable to score- as high as he could have.
8. Submits that the petitioner is a hard working student which is exemplified by the fact that he took his F.Sc. Pre-Medical Examination from the G.C. University, Lahore. Contends that the respondent- University is guilty of negligence in issuing the wrong Admittance Card to the petitioner, therefore, the respondent-University should rectify the error by compensating the petitioner by way of awarding him compensatory/grace marks. Relies on "Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another v. All Mir" (1984 SCMR 433), "Ayesha Fida v. Government of N-W.F.P. Through Secretary, Home and Tribal Affairs Department at Civil Secretariat Peshawar and 7 others" (2004 CLC 1160), "Mst. Shazia Shafi v. University of Health Sciences and others" (2011 MLD 894), "Syeda Shakeela Batool v. Controller of Examinations, Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University and another" (2004 YLR 1467), "Farmanullah Khan v. Controller of Examination, Karachi University"
(2010 MLD 85), "Dayyam Atta Tareen v. NUST and others" (2011 CLC 211), "Hafiz Husnain Raza Shah and 2 others v. Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University, Multan through Vice-Chancellor and 2 others"
(2011 MLD 741), "Rana Aamer Raza Ashfaq and another v. Dr. Minhaj Ahmad Khan and another" (2012 SCMR 6) and "Maryam Izhar and another v. International Islamic University and others" (2012 MLD 719).
9. The learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that the Booklet sets out in detail the Procedure/Rules/Regulations regarding holding of the Entrance Test. No departure can be made from the Procedure/Rules/Regulations stated therein. As per past practice Admittance Cards are issued to the candidates with their respective examination centers nominated therein. Similarly, as per routine so as to rectify any mistake having been made whilst issuing Admittance Cards the respondent-University gives out information regarding the examination centers by way of publishing of notices in the leading newspapers of the country as well as by posting the requisite information on its Website. This year such notices were published in several leading dailies including the daily "Dawn" of 24-8-2014. Information vis-a-vis examination centers was also available on the Website of the respondent-University. All candidates are advised to keep on checking the Website of the respondent-University so as to keep abreast of any development in the examination process. The petitioner was, therefore, duly informed through the notice as also through the information on the Website of his correct examination center.
10. Further submits, under instructions, that a mistake was indeed made by the respondent- University in that the wrong examination center was intimated to the petitioner through his Admittance Card. However, the said mistake was rectified through the process of publication of notice and posting of the correct information on the Website.
11. Refers to the documents filed by him on 26-9-2014 to submit that the petitioner's complaint was responded to within the requisite period by the respondent-University but the petitioner never collected the respondent-University's reply from the office. In any event a report was called for from the invigilation staff posted at the respondent-University's examination centre known as the University of Education, Lower Mall, Lahore. They reported that when the petitioner brought the mistake to their notice, immediate steps were taken for helping him out. The control room of the respondent-University was contacted and immediately upon receipt of the correct information it was relayed to the petitioner and a handwritten clarification slip duly signed by the invigilation staff was handed over to the petitioner at around 8:20 a.m. The petitioner was at the same time advised to go to the correct examination center i.e, Central Model School, Lower Mall, Lahore. Further submits that it is important to note that both examination centers in question are situated on Lower Mall, Lahore, and are in fact adjacent to one and another, therefore, the petitioner did not lose any time in going from one center to another.
12. In any event the respondent-University accommodated the petitioner by allowing him to enter the correct examination center after the closing time. The respondent-University co-operated with the petitioner and facilitated him in taking his examination. The petitioner in fact was present at the correct examination center before 9:00 a.m. And he began attempting the question paper at 9:00 a.m. Which is evident from the attendance sheet wherein the petitioner has put down his signatures at the start (9:00 a.m.) and the end (11:30 -a.m.) of the examination. This factor is further exemplified by the fact that the petitioner attempted all questions, therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner that he was unable to perform well.
13. Further submits that the petitioner passed his F.Sc. Examination in the year 2013 and as per the respondent-University's record he also took the Entrance Test in the year 2013. The petitioner does not appear to have done well last year, therefore, he has re-taken the Entrance Test this year. The petitioner in fact has improved upon his last year's result. In view thereof, the petitioner cannot contend that he has not been able to perform well.
14. Contends that a candidate taking an examination is normally stressed out and suffers from exam nerves. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim that he was extraordinarily stressed out as the problem which the petitioner faced was promptly taken care of and he was directed to the correct examination center. Moreover, by way of accommodation the petitioner was also allowed to sit for the Entrance Test even though he reached the latter examination center after closing time.
15. Refers to Clause 28.4 of the Booklet to submit that the Rules/Regulations do not allow special consideration to be given to a candidate for impaired performance on the day of the test caused by illness or unexpected personal situation. Contends that no exceptions can be made. Reiterates that the petitioner attempted the paper as a whole and answered all questions. The petitioner answered 178 questions correctly and thus obtained 890 marks. The petitioner, however, gave incorrect answers to 42 questions. As a consequence, 42 marks were deducted from his total marks thus leaving behind 848 marks which is the final result of the petitioner. The said result is much better than the result which the petitioner was able to achieve last year. In view of the fact that the petitioner answered all questions he cannot contend that he was unable to attempt the paper due to paucity of time.
16. Further submits that all candidates are aware that in the Entrance Test 5 (five) marks are awarded for each correct answer and 1 (one) mark is deducted for each incorrect answer. In other words the Entrance Test also entails negative marking. The petitioner answered 42 questions incorrectly, therefore, 42 marks were deducted from the marks obtained by him in respect of his correct answers. The petitioner, therefore, cannot blame the respondent-University for not bearing in mind that when in doubt it is better to not answer a question rather than answering it incorrectly and thus earning negative marks.
17. Further contends that the petitioner is guilty of concealment of facts inasmuch as both examination centers are situated on the Lower Mall, Lahore, and are adjacent to each other. In fact they are part of the same building. However, the petitioner has deliberately given incomplete addresses of both examination centers in the petition and has thus tried to create the impression that the examination centers are situated far away from one another. This act of the petitioner amounts to abuse of the process of the Court.
18. Contends that there are disputed questions of fact involved in the petition, which cannot be determined by this Court in the instant proceedings.
19. Relies on "Usman Tariq v. Punjab Public Service Commission and others" (2013 PLC (C.S.) 1183).
20. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-University has admitted its mistake. Contends that it is not a mistake simpliciter. The respondent-University has been negligent in passing on the information to the petitioner regarding his examination center. The negligence on the part of the respondent-University was wilful, arbitrary and unjustified. The respondent-University has tried to cover up its mistake by citing its Rules/Regulations. Contends that in such like circumstances this Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction can correct the wrong.
21. Further submits that the respondent-University should have intimated the petitioner about the mistake and/or the correct examination center by communicating directly with the petitioner especially given the fact that the petitioner's contact numbers and email address were available with the respondent-University.
22. Heard. Record perused.
23. The controversy in the instant petition revolves around the fact that wrong information was communicated to the petitioner vis-a-vis his examination center. The respondent-University has admitted its mistake but has taken the stance that the mistake was rectified by way of publication of notice and posting of the correct information on the Website of the respondent-University.
Moreover, on the date of the Entrance Test the petitioner was immediately informed about his correct examination center and was directed thereto. It has been further asserted that the petitioner was allowed to take the Entrance Test even though he arrived at the correct examination center after the cut-off time. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that due to the mistake on the part of the respondent-University, which according to the petitioner borders on mala fide, the petitioner's performance was impaired thus he was unable to achieve better marks.
24. The learned counsel for the respondent-University has relied on Clause 28.4 of the Information Booklet to contend that no special consideration can be given to a candidate for impaired performance on the day of the.Test due to illness or unexpected personal situation. The same argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent-University on 29-9-2014. At that time the learned counsel was informed that "the situation" was apparently caused by a mistake on the part of the respondent-University and was not "an unexpected personal situation".
The learned counsel was, therefore, required to obtain further instructions in this respect. Today the learned counsel submits that no departure can be made from the Rules/Regulations contained in the Booklet. However, a three member committee is being formed to probe into the matter and to suggest ways to avoid such incidents in future.
25. A perusal of the Booklet shows that Clause 28.4 thereof reads as under:- "28.4. It is NOT possible to give special consideration for impaired performance on the day of the test caused by illness or other unexpected personal situation."
' As will be clear the Clause states that no special consideration can be given to a candidate for impaired performance on the date of the test "caused by illness or other unexpected personal situation". The Clause, however, does not cater for the circumstances prevailing in the instant case.
Herein "the situation" is not one which is relatable to the petitioner in his personal capacity rather it is a situation of the respondent-University's own making.
26. It is settled law that educational institutions are the best judges of their Rules and Regulations.
This Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction normally does not interfere in such like matters as its jurisdiction cannot be invoked for obtaining decisions on merits which the functionaries alone are entitled to take under the law. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is principally meant for correcting jurisdictional errors in the orders and proceedings of tribunals and executive authorities. Reliance in this respect is placed on "Usman Tariq's case (supra), "Muhammad Abdullah Riaz v. U.H.S. And others" (PLD 2011 Lahore 555) and "Sahiba Dost v. Chairman Admissions Board/Vice-Chancellor U.H.S. And others" (PLD 2011 Lahore 605).
27. In the instant case, however, as observed above, the Rules/ Regulations as contained in the Booklet do not appear to cater for the situation in hand. This Court appreciates the fact that every year the respondent-University arranges for the Entrance Test which is taken by thousands of students and despite the large number of candidates involved their papers are checked and their results posted on the Website of the respondent-University in a matter of days. This is no mean achievement. However, at the same time this Court cannot help but notice that the respondent- University has not set up a mechanism whereby a mistake such as the one committed in the instant case can be discovered and rectified in time or indeed, information thereof can be given directly to a candidate.
28. It is the petitioner's case that had he been directly intimated about the mistake well in time before the date of the Entrance Test his performance would have not been impaired. The respondent-University to its credit did act promptly on the date of the Entrance Test and also allowed the petitioner to take the Entrance Test at the correct examination center, even though he arrived there after the cut-off time. The controversy, however, starts at this point that is to say when did the respondent-University become aware of the mistake. If the mistake was discovered well before the date of the Entrance Test then why was it not directly communicated to the petitioner given the fact that his contact numbers and email address were available with the respondent- University. Did the petitioner check the newspapers or the respondent-University's website to confirm the location of his examination center. In case the mistake was discovered by the respondent-University on the date of the Entrance Test itself then at what time the correct information was communicated to the petitioner. Moreover, did the petitioner reach the correct examination center before and not after 9:00 a.m. As contended by the respondent-University. All these factors are disputed questions of fact resolution whereof is not normally undertaken by this Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. It may be further noted that the respondent- University has decided to form a three member committee to probe into the matter so as to take steps to avoid such mistakes in the future. However, no relief has been decided to be given to the petitioner by quoting Clause-28.4 of the Booklet. But the fact remains that the respondent- University did commit a mistake even though it may be taken to be an honest mistake albeit it has not been so pleaded.
29. Under the circumstances, I am persuaded to refer the matter to the Vice- Chancellor/Admissions Board of the respondent-University for further consideration whilst exercising their parental jurisdiction in the matter.
30. It is expected that the Vice-Chancellor/Admissions Board shall proceed in the matter with reasonable dispatch and shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of fair hearing.
31. In case the Vice-Chancellor/Admissions Board does not have jurisdiction in the matter, then they shall refer the matter for further consideration to the competent authority who in turn shall proceed in the matter as mentioned hereinabove.
32. Disposed of accordingly.