1. ' IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.---This is an appeal under section 7(3)(d) of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977 ("Ordinance") praying that the orders dated 5-5-2010 and 19-4-2010 passed by Federal Public Service Commission ("Commission") may be set aside and a prayer made by the appellant in his representation for re-evaluation of his answer sheets may be allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant appeared in Competitive Examination, 2009. On declaration of the result, he was informed that he had failed in aggregate securing 593 marks. The appellant was dissatisfied of the result and, filed a representation on 21-11-2009 with the request that his answer books in the subjects of Economics Paper-I, International Relations and Journalism be reevaluated. Vide order dated 24-12-2009, the Commission informed the appellant that recounting of his marks in the afore noted subjects had been undertaken and no discrepancy had been found in the marking, totaling and posting of marks. The appellant was not satisfied with the said response and filed a review application seeking personal hearing. Vide letter dated 1-2-2010, he was informed that in terms of Rule 7(viii) of the Federal Public Service Commission Rules for Competitive Examination (CSS), 2009, re-examination of marks in the papers was not possible.
2. However, his request for personal hearing was entertained. He was advised to appear before the Commission for personal hearing on 10-4-2010. The Commission heard the appellant in person.
3. However, vide letter dated 19-4-2010 he was informed that the Commission after due deliberation had rejected his representation. The appellant, however, pressed the matter further and filed another review petition on 27-4-2010. The Commission entertained it as a review petition and reiterating its earlier stance, that re-assessment/re-evaluation of answer books was not permissible in terms of the rule, rejected the said petition. Hence, this petition.
4. 3.The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that repeated representations and review petitions filed by the appellant have been rejected without just cause and in a hasty and slipshod manner.
5. He maintains that the actions of the respondents are arbitrary and rejection of the representations and review petitions filed by the appellant has been undertaken in a mechanical manner without due application of mind despite the fact that the appellant had expressed his willingness to pay for the exercise of re-evaluation. It is further submitted that denial on the part of the Commission to send the answer sheets of the appellant for reevaluation violates his fundamental rights. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon Muhammad Usman Qayyum v. University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore and 5 others (2004 SCMR 606), Farmanullah Khan v. Controller of Examination, Karachi University (2010 MLD 85), Ms. Shakeela v. University of Peshawar through Vice-Chancellor and another (PLD 2003 Peshawar 69) and All Usman Faiz and 8 others v.
6. Chairman BISE and 5 others (2009 MLD 42).
7. 4.The Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan, on the other hand, has taken the stance that there is no provision either in the Ordinance or the Rules framed thereunder permitting re-evaluation of the answer books. He submits that according to the Rules, the answer books, which are confidential documents, are not permitted to be seen by candidates or their representatives and there is a specific bar on re-examination/reevaluation of answer books under any circumstances. He further maintains that on the request of the appellant, he was granted personal hearing by the Commission. However, in the absence of any Rule permitting re-evaluation, his request was not acceded to.
8. 5.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
9. 6.The only question requiring determination by this Court is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the appellant is entitled to the relief sought, namely, the re-evaluation of his answer books. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, examination of the Ordinance and Rules framed thereunder, my answer to the question is in negative for the following reasons:
(a) The Commission has been constituted under the Ordinance.
10. ' In terms of Section 7 of the Ordinance, the functions of the Commission, inter alia, include conducting tests and examination for recruitment of persons to All Pakistan Service, the civil services of the Federation and civil posts in connection with the affairs of the Federation in basic pay scale 16 and above or equivalent. In terms of Section 7(iii) a candidate aggrieved by the decision of the Commission may within 30 days of such decision make a representation which is required to be decided within 15 days. In case a candidate is aggrieved by the decision of the Commission on his representation, he may submit a review petition to the Commission which is required to be decided within 30 days. Admittedly, the appellant filed a representation as well as review both of which were rejected by the Commission on the ground that the Rules did not provide for re-evaluation of the answer sheets. In addition, it is not denied by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was also granted a personal hearing. The appellant's grievances were heard by the Commission. However, the relief sought by him was declined for the afore noted reasons.
(b) The Commission in exercise of powers conferred on it under Section 10 of the Ordinance read with Section 7(a) thereof framed rules for the conduct of its business. Section 7(a) specifically provides that the Commission may make any rules providing for any of the functions of the Commission specified in Section 7 of the Ordinance. Consequently, Rules for Competitive Examination (CSS) 2009 were promulgated which deal with a large number of matters including matters relating to age limit, age relaxation, educational grades, domicile, subjects qualifying marks, medical tests and filing of representations etc. Rule 7, inter alia, deals with the question of recounting of marks. For ease of reference, the said Rule being relevant to the present controversy is re-produced below: "7(viii) Answer Books in all subjects of examination are confidential documents and cannot, therefore, be permitted to be seen by candidates or their representatives nor re-examination of answer books/scripts is allowed under any circumstances. A candidate desirous of getting his/her marks, awarded by the examiners, re-counted may submit his/her request for the purpose, within one month, from the date of . Issue of result card/marks sheet along with a treasury challan of Rs,200 per paper as fee for recounting of marks only. Thereafter, no such request will be entertained."
11. ' From a plain reading of the afore noted Rule, it is evident that while it caters for recounting of the marks awarded by examiner on the answer sheets in order to rule out any error of addition or omission of marks awarded by examiner on the award list, it specifically prohibits re-examination of answer books under any circumstances. The logic behind such provisions is not hard to understand. Competitive examination is a time bound process. Once the result is announced, a merit list is prepared and further process for interview, physiological tests etc is set into motion. The Commission is required to make its recommendations within a specified time. In case permission is granted to candidates to get their answer sheets re-evaluated from different examiners, it would be an unending exercise and would make it impossible for the Commission to prepare a final list for making its recommendations. Even otherwise, marking of papers is not an exact science and a paper sent to a different examiner may result in more or lesser marks than those awarded by original examiner. Further, most papers are marked by one examiner or one set of examiners and it would neither be fair nor just to send one or more papers for re-evaluation to a different examiner or set of examiners. This exercise would open up a Pandoras box and would be unfair to other candidates whose papers have been marked by the same examiner or set of examiners and have qualified to go to the next stage.
(c) A perusal of the assertions made in the appeal as well as representations indicates that there is no specific assertion or allegation regarding the mode and manner in which the answer books were checked. The only basis on account of which the appellant has been agitating the matter is that in his view he had performed better than the marks that have been awarded to him. In the absence of any material on record indicating gross error, incompetence of examiners or mala fides on their part which have not even been alleged at any stage, permitting re-evaluation of answer sheets could not only disruptive for the process but would also hamper the ability of " the Commission to perform its functions in an effective and timely manner. Further, the rules provide a specific bar on re-evaluation, and Rule 7(viii) still holds the field.
7. The question agitated through this appeal came up for hearing before Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.As. Nos. 66 and 67 of 2000 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the said rule and came to the conclusion that in the absence of any provision for re- examination/re-evaluation of answer papers in the Rules, the Commission was justified to decline the requests of the appellant for re-evaluation of their script. However, under the said rule only recounting of the marks obtained by candidates is permissible which, can be done in accordance with the procedure laid down in the said rule.
12. 8.In the afore noted judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan also relied upon the following findings recorded in Abdul Hakeem Hashmi v. Federal Public Service Commission and others (2002 SCMR 504: "Under Rule 7(viii) of the Rules of the Competitive Examination, 1999, answer papers, are secret documents and cannot be seen by the candidates or their representatives nor re-examination of answer books is allowed in any circumstances. The said rule is re-produced hereunder: "Answer papers in all the subjects of examination are secret documents and cannot, therefore, be permitted to be seen by the candidates or their representatives nor re-examination of answer books/scripts is allowed under any circumstances. A candidate desirous of getting of his/her marks, awarded by the examiners recounted may submit his request for the purpose within one month from the date of issue of result card/marks sheet along with a Treasury Challan of Rs,50/- per paper as fee for rechecking/re-counting of marks only. Thereafter, no such request will be entertained."
13. ' The summoning of answer books by the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction has been disapproved by this Court in case of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v.
14. Siama Azad (1996 SCMR 676) and it has been further observed that marking of numbers on the answer book is a technical job which the High Court is not expected to undertake in exercise of its powers of judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution. Regarding re-examination/re- evaluation of the answer books through panel of examiners, this Court in case of Tahir Saeed Qureshi v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha and others (1996 SCMR 1872) has laid down that the High Court cannot go beyond the scope of the prescribed Rules in Constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused."
15. 9.In the case reported as Farooq Ahmad v. Chairman, Federal Public Service Commission, Islamabad (1998 SCMR 336), the decision of the Commission declining the candidate's request for re-checking by relying on Rule 7(viii) was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. All the aforenoted judgments relate to the Commission and deal with interpretation of Rule 7(viii). To that extent, the law stands settled.
10. I have gone through the case-law cited by learned counsel for the appellant and find that the judgments have been rendered in a different set of facts and circumstances, relate to the statutes/rules governing University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Karachi University, University of Peshawar and Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education. None of the judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant at the bar relate to the Commission or deal with Rule 7(viii) ibid. The said judgments are, therefore, distinguishable and are of no help to the appellant. Admittedly, on the request of the appellant, his answer sheets were examined by the Commission from point of view of ensuring that there was no error or discrepancy in counting or totaling the marks awarded by the examiner. No such discrepancy or error having been found, the appellant was informed accordingly. However, the prayer of the appellant seeking re-evaluation of his answer sheets cannot be acceded to for reasons recorded above and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the afore noted judgments.
16. 11 . For reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.