SYED ARSHAD ALI, J.---The petitioner seeks the constitutional jurisdiction of this court praying that:-- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that by accepting the instant petition, the respondents may graciously be directed to add the neglected marks to the petitioner correct the total marks in the oral and practical of Community Dentistry as per admission of respondents college and HOD of the department of Community Dentistry so as to save the precious year and future of the petitioner from going to waste. Any other order/relief/ direction which this August Court may deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case by invoking its parental jurisdiction and decisions be also given."
2. Brief but essential facts of the case are, the petitioner is the student of Ayub Medical College of Dentistry, Abbottabad. His academic record placed on file shows that he could not qualify the first professional annual examination held in the year 2015, however, on his second chance, he was able to pass the first professional supplementary examination in March, 2016. Petitioner appeared in BDS 2nd year annual examination, 2016, however, he could not pass the subject of Community Dentistry, hence he reappeared in the said paper in the supplementary examination held in March, 2017.
Again he could not qualify/pass the said paper. The result was declared on 2nd May, 2017.
According to his result, he passed the written paper, however, could not qualify the oral and practical examination, hence, was declared failed. Indeed he obtained 36 marks out of 50 in written paper, whereas 22 out of 50 in oral and practical examination. The required marks to pass oral and practical examination is 25. According to the rules the 50 marks for oral and practical assessment have been bifurcated as following:-- Viva 20 marks OSPE 20 marks Internal Assessm ent 10 marks Every college, where a student is pursuing his studies, is required to submit the marks given/awarded to a student to the Controller of Examination of Khyber Medical University, before the annual examination. In the case of petitioner, he has obtained 11 marks in viva and 11 marks in OSPE, whereas he was awarded zero marks in the internal assessment by his own college/department and such result was submitted to the controller of examinations before the declaration of result on 2nd May, 2017 on declaration of result, the petitioner, feeling himself aggrieved of his internal assessm ent, through a letter addressed to his Head of Department of Community Dentistry complaining about awarding him zero marks in his internal examination. On this complaint, the Head of Department wrote a letter dated nil to the Controller of Examinations, Khyber Medical University, Peshawar, wherein she has given the following details regarding the internal assessm ent and the marks awarded to the petitioner in his oral and practical examination:-- Viva 11 marks OSPE 11 marks Internal Assessment 03 marks
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that when the head of department has categorically stated in letter dated nil that total marks obtained in oral and practical examination by the petitioner are 25, then obviously, it was the respondent university who had incorrectly calculated the marks, of the petitioner and as such the petitioner is not at fault, either it is the respondent College which could not communicate the marks of internal assessment before the declaration of result or the university has omitted to add/assign 3 marks of his internal assessm ent.
4. The learned counsel, Mr. Mansoor Tariq, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent University has argued and placed on file copy of the detailed sheets which the Controller of Examination has received from the Ayub Medical College of Dentistry. According to the copy of the original sheets provided, the petitioner appeared under Roll No. 11693. Petitioner obtained 05 marks from internal examiner and 5 marks from external examiner and 12.5 marks in his OSCE. Whereas in final internal assessm ent, he was awarded zero marks. The net calculation of the total marks is duly reflected in his detailed marks certificate of BDS 2nd Supplementary Examination:
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. The record is very straight and clear. According to his result of second professional supplementary examination, 2016, petitioner has obtained total 22 marks in oral and practical examination. The respondent University has provided the breakup of the marks awarded to the petitioner received from Ayub Medical College of Dentistry, where the petitioner is getting his education.
7. Petitioner does not dispute the marks awarded to him in his viva and OSPE, however, he disputes his marks awarded to him in his internal assessment. The Controller of Examination of the respondent University has placed on file the final assessment total marks sheets wherein marks awarded to each student has been provided by Ayub Medical College of Dentistry. The said sheet clearly shows that the petitioner has been awarded zero marks in final internal assessment by his own College. The subsequent letter issued by the head of department wherein it has been mentioned that in internal assessm ent, the petitioner was awarded 3 marks, is an afterthought and has been issued after declaration of the result. This letter cannot be believed on two ground, firstly that internal examination rules of the respondents does not allow the same. For the ready reference the said rules are reproduced below:-- "Internal Evaluation and Regulations: v. Awards of internal assessment in all the subjects of all the candidates shall be submitted to the Controller of Examination along with Admission Forms for the annual examination. Internal assessment received after commencement of the final examination shall not be accepted."
And secondly, if such practice is allowed, it will open the flood gate to the students who could not obtain qualifying marks at the time of their internal assessment and after declaration of result, they either maneuver with the head of department or influence the head of department to make good the deficiency. Even otherwise, if this practice is couraged, it will lead to indiscipline in our academic institutes.
8. The educational institutes like the respondent are government under rules and regulations and the persons sitting in the helm of affairs of the institute/university are custodian of the rights and privileges of all the students for whom these universities are established. They are sole judge to interpret and apply the rules keeping in view the situation as arises before them. Unless they act arbitrarily, whimsically, in disregard of rules and with mala fide, the High Court normally does not interfere in their working while exercising constitutional jurisdiction. In "Muhammad Ryas v. Baha- ud-Din Zakariya University Multan 2005 SCM R 961" the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has held:-- "We have heard the learned counsel and have also gone through the relevant regulation. At the outset it may be noted that as far as the rules/regulations framed by the University Authorities for the purpose of conductive/regularizing examination etc. of University are concerned these are required to be interpreted by the University Authorities itself and Courts should avoid to interpret the same unless a case of grave injustice is not made out otherwise it would become difficult for University administration to run its internal affairs relating to examination, etc."
The aforementioned view was re-affirmed in "University of Health and Science Lahore v. Arsalan Ali and another" 2016 SCM R 134"
9. With these observations, the petition in hand stands disposed of accordingly.