' MUHAMMAD ASLAM MIAN, J.-This Intra-Court. Appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, has been brought from an order dated 4th July, 1982 of the learned Judge in Chamber whereby he dismissed in limine a Writ Petition (W. P. 2548/82) filed by the appellant in which petition the appellant had sought a declaration to the effect that Result Order No, 8534 as conveyed vide Memo. No, 42-Inter (Autumn)-81, dated 30-5-1982 by the respondents to the appellant, in the name of the appellant under Roll No, 14817 in respect of Economic Paper '13' was without lawful authority and of no legal effect with a further direction to the respondents to honour the marks given by the Expert Examiner who on the asking of the respondents had re-evaluated the aforesaid paper of the appellant.
2. Briefly the facts of the appeal are that the appellant appeared in Inter (Autumn) compartment examination in General Science Group scheduled by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore in 1981. The appellant was declared unsuccessful as having failed in Economics.
The appellant was not satisfied according to his understanding as to the evaluation of his answer- book. He submitted a form dated 11-3-1982 to the Controller of Examinations, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore for the re-checking of his answer-book in Economics Paper 'B' which was replied by the Board on 30-3-1982 with the remarks that the result had been correctly announced, however, he was allowed to see his answer book within a week. According to the appellant at the time he was viewing his answer-book a highly qualified and experienced education officer observed after going through the answer book that the appellant's answers to questions were unjustifiably under-marked. Thereupon, on 21-4-1982 the appellant filed a petition addressed to the Chairman of the Board challenging the standard of the evaluation of his answer book and the competence of the Examiner supported by the opinion in writing of the above said Education Officer, on which application the Chairman ordered to obtain the opinion of an expert in Economics. The answer book of the appellant was sent to Professor A. S. Khalid, Chairman, Economics Department, Government College, Lahore alongwith 20 more scripts taken out from the evaluated answer books by the Sub-Examiner concerned. The expert opined :- "21 answer books sent to me have been examined as desired. There does not seem to be overall stiff marking. Though the examiner has failed to maintain his own standard of marking in some cases."
' In the case of the appellant he expressed that according to his evaluation the appellant was entitled to 41 marks instead of 21 marks which had been initially given by the Sub-Examiner. Instead of proceeding further on the evaluation so received respondent No. 1 rejected the case of the appellant on 30-5-1982 observing :- . . . Under the relevant rules of the Board only such answer books can be referred to the Review Committee wherein the Sub-Examiners award Zero for the solution of question correctly attempted. But in your answer book under reference the solution of not a single question has been awarded zero, so this answer book cannot be referred to Review Committee. The letter No, 42 Inter
(aut) 81, dated 30-3-1982 already issued to you may be considered final."
3. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a Constitutional petition challenging the validity of the act of the respondents. The learned Judge in Chamber as to the non-qualification of the Examiner about which the learned counsel had referred to the rule prescribing experience and qualification of an Examiner and Sub-Examiner, observed :- "The learned counsel has not placed on record any document showing as to what was the qualification of the present Examiner. His objection simply is that the Chairman has not adverted to that objection. Even if it be so the petitioner must have placed before me something showing that the said Examiner was prima facie not qualified for the purpose. In this view of the matter, it is difficult for me to interfere."
' The learned Judge in Chamber further observed :- "The second submission that the answer book had been marked arbitrarily is neither here nor there.
Every examiner has his own way and standard of marking. One might differ with the other. One may be strict while another lenient. If one starts interfering in such matters then there will be no end to it.
5. The learned counsel then submitted that there should have been a revision by the Chairman of the petitioner's marking through a Committee. Even this contention is not borne out from any of the legal provisions. On the other hand, if the courts start doing this, then there will perhaps be a complaint by every student for remarking and consequently no examination may ever be completed, ' For the reasons given above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine."
4. The appellant has questioned in this Intra-Court Appeal the validity of the order passed in the writ petition. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the case of the appellant has not been received within the true perspective nor appreciated in accordance therewith as to the rules applicable to the case of the appellant by the learned Judge in Chamber. The learned counsel has maintained that after a written order by the Chairman for obtaining re-examination and re-marking of the appellant's answer book from an independent expert emalliner who had evaluated appellant's paper and assessed thereon 41 marks as compared to 21 marks already given by the Sub-Examiner ; by reopening the matter to that extent and having become aware of the fact that the appellant's answer book was arbitrarily underevaluated, it was not open to the respondents to drop the matter without further referring to the Review Committee on the pretext of the relevant rule of the Board that the appellant's case could only be referred to the Review Committee if he had been given Zero mark for the solution of question correctly attempted and the understanding of the respondents conveyed to the appellant that his result had been correctly announced and published, was unwarranted. The learned counsel has next contended that the withholding of review of the appellant's result was not justified as it was a case of complete injustice and a case precisely falling under General Regulation No, 10 of Chapter IV of the Board as a case of hardship. According to the learned counsel neither this Regulation was adverted to and acted upon nor Para. 14 (4) (5) of the West Pakistan Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Ordinance, 1961. The learned counsel has further relied upon Rule 40 of section 4 of the Calendar of the Board. He has urged that the respondents cannot overemphasise the importance of rules in such a case for affording a redress to the appellant because if this injustice is left as unredressed then it is tantamount to a victimization of the appellant. He has emphasised that if any hitch is placed in such like cases by any rule then such a rule can be struck down as unreasonable or as a bad rule in order to secure a just end. The door to justice cannot be closed by the mechanism of such rules which remain changing from time to time and situation to situation. The learned counsel has also addressed, as to the position of the Chairman, by advancing his argument, that he had already exercised revisional power which vested in him as an authority, so the case could have been made good by him in view of that he had done and the result thereon or it could be made good by the review committee. Lastly he has submitted that the Sub-Examiner concerned was not qualified according to the rules and regulations of the Board but he has not pursued this contention further so as to connect it in the affiliated requirement and to show that in which respect the Sub-Examiner lacked the qualification. According to the learned counsel the suppression of the appellant's case by Memo. Dated 30-5-1982 suffered from a serious flaw and arbitrariness, so the matter can be successfully agitated in a writ petition for the rectification of such a collosal sort of injustice. In support of his contentions he has relied upon Controller of Examinations, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education v. Waqar Hussain Hashmi (1), Miss Rifat Parveen v. Selection Committee through Principal/ Administrator, Bolan Medical College, Quetta (2) and Rahat Siddiqui v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another (3). {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1977 Lah. 1029 (2) PLD 1980 Quetta 10
(3) 1977 SCMR 213 {{FOOT NOTE}}
5. Mr. Ijaz Ahmad, Advocate, appearing for the respondents has, in reply, admitted up to the extent of the reference of the answer book of the appellant to an expert and his opinion as to the marks thereon but has maintained that under the relevant rules of the Board the candidates could get their answer books re-checked within one month of the declaration of the result to ensure that totals have been rightly brought forward ; there is no mistake in the grand total on the cover of the answer book ; no portion of any answer has been left as unmarked and the answer book has/have not been changed nor any portion thereof removed. The re-evaluation of the scripts is not permissible under the Board's rules. All the instructions to this effect have been set out in printing on the reverse of the form for re-checking of answer-books. The answer-book of the appellant had not been referred to the review committee because it was not a question of carrying zero award. In view of rule 4 of the calender as amended only those cases are preferable to the review committee where a zero has been awarded by the Sub-Examiner for correct solution of a question or a part of a question vide the decision of the Board. In accordance with the procedure followed by the office of the Board an opinion from the expert is obtained normally on receipt of the complaints under the very orders of the Chairman but the marks awarded by the Sub-Examiner and approved by the Head Examiner once declared are not changed except in the cases, (1) if it is established after thorough probe that the examiner who evaluated the scripts was not competent or (ii) if it is proved that the examiner has left some question or a part thereof unmarked by mistake or through misunderstanding or (iii) if the examiner has awarded zero for correct solution of a question or part of a question. Over all the submissions of the learned counsel are directed to the end that there being absence of any rule in the case of the appellant so the appellant could not be provided with any redress and still to provide him with the redress he claims for, will be to set up a bad precedent which will serve to monger many challenges by various candidates. According to the learned counsel the case of the appellant was rightly dropped and as it was not referable to the review committee either for re-checking or-reevaluation, so the appellant has no cause of action.
' As to the maintainability of the writ petition the learned counsel has put a keen emphasis on the position of the Board by submitting that the Board as to its own matters arising within its jurisdiction enjoys an internal autonomy and as to the functioning thereof cannot be called upon by way of a writ either to do or to undo anything which falls within its sphere and anything done by the Board within the for corners of the regulations and rules is not open to challenge before any Court. The learned counsel has relied in support of the argument as to the maintainability of the writ, on :- (1)R. v. Dunsheath, Ex-parte Meredith (1950) All E R741.
(2)Thorne v. University of London (1966) 2 All E R 338.
(3)Muhammad Sayyar v. Vice-Chancellor, Peshawar University PLD 1974 SC 257 (4)Abdul Aziz v. Punjab University PLD 1979 Note 49 at p.
34.
(5)Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v, M. Massadaq Naseem PLD 1973 Lah.
600.
6. Before entering into the merits, this case requires correction underm Order I, rule 10, C. P. C. As to the miss description of a party. In the petition respondent No. 1 is stated as the Province of Punjab through Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore. 'This is a case against a statutory body with which the Province of Punjab has nothing to do. This has been inserted instead of mentioning the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through its Chairman. It appears to be an act of inadvertence and simply a case of misdescription of respondent No. 1. Under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C. a court has the power to correct such a misdescription. In Government of West Pakistan v. Ghulam Sarwar Khan (1) a D. B. Decision in an Evacuee property case under Ordinance XXVIII of 1961, West Pakistan Waqf Propertice Ordinance, the Chief Administrator of Auqaf, West Pakistan was made a corporation sole for the purpose of the Auqaf property to sue and to be sued in his corporate name. The Ordinance had specifically repealed the N.-W. F. P. Cheritable Institution Act, of 1949 as well as Ordinance XXI of 1959. The Administrator or the Chief Administrator who became vested with the control of the property under the relevant Ordinance was not made the appellant instead of the Provincial Government. It was held :- "It is only a defect of a technical nature not effecting the character of the appellant and at worst only amounted to a mis description which can be rectified under Order I, rule 10, C. P. C. The appeal should be construed as having been regularly instituted by the Chief Admin iterator of Auqaf, West Pakistan In the present appeal the power of attorney has been executed by the Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore in favour of Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, Advocate and it has been specifically mentioned in the power of attorney that it is being filed for respondent No. 1. No objection B has been taken as to the miss description, so it is clear that actual respondent meaning thereby the Board through its Chairman has not been misled as to the miss description the Board has responded to the case and has been fully represented.
7. In formal rectification of the misdescription as to respondent No. 1, the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through its Chairman for the purpose of this appeal as well as the writ petition is being treated as respondent No. 1 so as to read the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through its Chairman.
8. The first question which is being dealt with is as to the objection raised by respondents in respect with the jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ in such like matters. In R. v. Dunsheath (2) relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents, 50 members of convocation of the University of London served a requisition on the Chairman for the summoning of a meeting of convocation to consider certain matters, but he refused to do so and an order of mandamus was sought to compel him to summon the meeting in accordance with the Statutes of the University. It was held that the question whether an office of the University had refused to perform a duty placed on him by the Statute of the University was a domestic matter and, therefore, one essentially for the visitor, and the application for the mandamus would be refused. In Thorne v. University of London (3), the plaintiff's claim was for damages for negligently misjudging the plaintiff's examination papers for the intermediate and finals LL. B. And for a mandamus commanding the defendant to award the plaintiff the {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1962 (W. P.) Pesh. 115 (2) (1950) 2 All E R 741
(3) (1966) All E R 338 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' credit at least justified. It was an application for leave to appeal from an order of Stephenson, J.
Striking out the plaintiff' writ and statement of claim and dismissing the action which he brought against the University of London, the defendant, the Court of appeal while dismissing the application of the plaintiff/appellant, observed :- "The High Court has no jurisdiction to hear complaints by a member of London University or by a person seeking a degree from the University, against the University about its examinations or conferment of degrees, because those matters are with the exclusive jurisdiction of the visitor of the University?'
' In the case of Muhammad Sayyar v. Vice-Chancellor, Peshawar University (1) the appellant who was seeking admission to the Khyber Medical College by a constitutional petition called in question the order of the Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar refusing to give him certain concessional marks in the subject of Biology. (So as to enable him to gain the required admission on the strength of marks). The case of the appellant on the facts and law involved was regarded by the learned Supreme Court that of a real or substantial hardship due to causes beyond the control of the student but the matter was treated entirely falling within the discretion of the Chairman of the Board as provided in the concerned regulation and it was at the same time expressed that "the Chairman will no doubt take into consideration the fact that the appellant has missed admission by only two marks and that the concession has now been extended even to those who failed in the first examination taken after the completion of National Service."
' In Abdul Aziz v. Punjab University (2) the question involved was whether a particular person passed an examination when the examination Authority had declared that he had failed. It was held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass a person in an examination and the only remedy open to the petitioner was to have asked for re-checking of his papers and since papers had already been destroyed by the University authority, so the petitioner was left with no remedy at all. In Board of Int.
And Sec. Educatian, Lahore v. Massadaq Naseem (3) in an unfair means case during examination which was discovered by the Examiner at the time of evaluation of the answer: book the matter was referred to the Controller firstly then to the Disciplinary Committee. The candidate was held guilty by the Committee and was disqualified for two terms. On dismissal of his appeal before the departmental authority, the candidate challenged the decision of the Committee by way of a writ petition on the ground that he was not found in physical possession of any material in the examination hall, so the rules as to unfair means were not attracted. The writ petition was accepted and the order of the disciplinary committee was quashed. The decision of the learned Single Judge was reversed in the Letters Patent Appeal wherein the learned Judges of this Court observed as to the position of the Board :- "The Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore is in the nature of a mere domestic Tribunal constituted under the law and a dispute of this kind between the Board and the candidate admitted to the examination arranged by it, is primarily domestic. Such a dispute can be more properly resolved in the homely and domestic {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1974 SC 257 (2) PLD 1979 Note 49 at p. 34
(3) PLD 1973 Lah, 600 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' atmosphere of the Board, and should not be ordinarily allowed to be dragged to the law Court."
' It was further observed at page 608 "Under the law (Constitutional law) the most that the High Court can do is to simply pronounce upon the invalidity of the order and declare that it was "without lawful authority and is of no legal effect." Beyond it, strictly speaking, this Court has no jurisdiction to issue any other direction and substitute its own judgment in the matter. After the order has been quashed in this manner it then rests entirely with the competent authority or the tribunal concerned to pass any further order that may be necessary in the exercise of its jurisdiction in the light of the law thus declared."
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has in reply to the objection raised cited Controller of Examination, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Waqar Hussain Hashini (1) wherein it has been observed by the learned Judge, "where the Board has acted in excess of its jurisdiction, its action is not immune from being challenged in a Court of law."
10. The English decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondents are distinguishable since there was another remedy available to the applicants i,e, a reference could be made to the visitor, there is no such provision here. As to the jurisdiction of this Court in much matters, the matter requires determination in the light of or own legal system. In Muhammad Sayyar's case the learned Supreme Court left the matter to be considered as to hardship by the Chairman since in that behalf the Chairman had vested with discretion by virtue of the regulation nevertheless the learned Supreme Court had expressed a suggestive direction that the Chairman will no doubt take into consideration .
This decision does not close the doors of consitutional jurisdiction if a case otherwise appears as attracting it may be appertaining to such statutory body concerning a matter arising out of an examination. In the decision (PLD 1973 Lah. 600), cited above, the learned Judges had not denied the jurisdiction of this Court but had observed as a matter of preference that being a domestic tribunal the dispute could be resolved in the homely and domestic atmosphere rather than such a matter to be dragged ordinarily to the law Courts. So far as the part of the second observation is concerned, it is well-placed that this Court is not to substitute its own judgment for that of the Board. In or legal system the writ jurisdiction is a creation of the Constitution which has defined its entire range. So that first guidance which can be sought as to the subject-matter is Article 199 of the Constitution o Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 presently read with Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. A writ primarily can be issued within the framework of the Constitution and the law. Now Article 4 of the Constitution 1973 read with Article 2 of the Provisional Constitution Order, says, "to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen wherever he may be and of every' other person for the time being within Pakistan. "The term law' given in this Article means the general law of the land, special laws, rules and regulations. The term law also includes the bye-laws, rules and regulations E of a statutory body vis-a-vis a citizen. If there is any violation of any such bye-laws, rules and regulations etc. By a statutory body itself, then the {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1977 Lah. 1029 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' Constitutional jurisdiction can be successfully invoked so as to keep a statutory body within its limits and in obedience to the rules which govern it because taken in the light of this Article a citizen of Pakistan dealing with a statutory body can claim to be dealt with according to Bye-laws, RegulationsfP or Rules. Therefore, in fit cases this Court can make its writ to run against a statutory body where a citizen of Pakistan complains of violation of the bye-laws, regulations or rules affecting his right, position or withholding of any benefit due on rules, provided all the conditions precedent to the issuance of a writ are satisfied.
11. There are so many authorities of the Supreme Court and the High Court's where in appropriate cases the Courts have been providing Constitutional remedy to the students against Educational Institutions. The present case along with peculiarity of its facts requires analysis so as .o come to a conclusion that whether a writ can be issued as to redress the grievance of the appellant. The reliance of the learned counsel for the appellant is on rule 40, Chapter IV of the Calendar of the Board which is reproduced here :- "In no case shall the Head Examiner himself increase or decrease the marks assigned to any paper by a Sub-Examiner. In case of a difference arising between a Head Examiner and one of the subordinate Examiners, the Chairman may either appoint a third Examiner whose award shall be final or refer the matter to the Committee of courses concerned for decision which shall be subject to the final approval of the Chairman."
' The appellant cannot have any benefit of the above-quoted rule as it has been rightly appointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that this rule covers the matter before a result is announced. Therefore, the decision reported as 1977 SCMR 213 is of no avail to him.
12. The respondents' reliance is on Rule 5.15 which is as under "Candidates appearing in all the examinations conducted by the Board shall be permitted to get their answer books rechecked to the effect that-
(I) totals have been rightly brought forward :
(2) no portion of any answer has been left unmarked
(3) there is no mistake in the grand total on the cover of the answer books, or/and
(4) the answer book has not been changed.
' Candidates desirous of getting their answer books checked in this way would have to apply for this purpose within 40 days of the declaration of the result and pay Rs, 10, as re-checking fee of the paper."
Next reliance is on rule 4 of the Calendar as amended on 31-S-198I which says : {{URDU TEXT}}
13. Now the insistence of the respondents that the case of the appellant was not referable to the Review Committee for final decision since no 'zero mark was awarded to him in respect with any of his answers, correctly solved is not justified, according to the rule it was open to the Board to have dropped the matter there and then after having discovered that the appellant's case was not covered by the rules rather than to have referred the answer book of the appellant to the Expert in Economics. On re-marking of the answer book of the appellant by the Expert at the instance of the Chairman of the Board on the complaint of the appellant it had come into evidence that the answer book of the appellant was arbitrarily evaluated by the Sub-Examiner. Had the appellant been awarded marks fairly then he would have got through the G paper in question. In the circumstances, the Board now lacks the power to hush up the truth and treat the appellant as having failed though according to the weight of his answer book he is entitled to get through. After getting such an assessm ent the case was preferable to the Review Committee as it had become necessary to push the matter to its logical conclusion because a sufficient ground of equity had come into existence in favor of the appellant whose fruitful attempt was being wasted. Rule 4 cannot be invoked in its entirety by the Board since the Board had itself departed from the Rule by refering the answer book in question for re-marking to the Expert when the case was not of 'zero' mark.
It is pertinent to note here that the Secretary, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, recorded a note on 27-4-1982 appearing at page 37 of the file produced by respondent No, 2 which is to the following effect :- "I have read the whole script and also checked whether the answers were relevant to the questions asked. I now feel convinced that gross injustice has been done to the candidate. It may be worthwhile to get opinion of an Expert as well and if he also considers it a case of extremely stiff marking, then it may be referred to the Board for getting the whole lot of the papers assigned to this Sub-Examiner reevaluated."
The Board has in its report submitted to this Court admitted that in two instances the answer books were re-evaluated and the result was revised after the declaration of the result on certain irregularities committed by the Sub-Examiners. From this circumstance, it is inferable that in fit cases result can be revised even after its declaration.
14. As to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Rule of 'zero' mark if places any hitch in the case of the appellant, then it can be struck down as unreasonable or as a bad rule in order to secure a just end, for the decision of this case it is not necessary to go into such a question, henceforth there is no necessity of discussing the impact of Quetta decision referred to above on it.
15. From the facts it appears a case of basic injustice and of real hardship, as said above. The rectification of a wrong requires no rule because it is a must. So in order to keep the standard of the institution and ensure a fair carrying of the object it requires the bringing of the truth which has become manifest to its logical conclusion to save the labour, expense and agony of a student as such the case of the appellant is fit to be referred to the Review Committee for final decision so as to give effect to the opinion of Mr. A. S. Khalid expert in Economics.
' Resultantly, this appeal is accepted, the decision of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the act of the Chairman refusing to refer the case of the appellant to the Review Committee of the Board is declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect in the peculiar circumstances of this case with a direction that respondent No. 1 shall refer the case of the appellant to the Review Committee. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.
' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.-Appellant appeared in Intermediate (Autumn) Examination, 1981 held by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and was declared to have failed in Economics Paper 'B'. He had been given 21 marks out of 100.
2. He applied for re-checking of his answer book. Application was accompanied with a certificate from Mrs. Shafqat Ara, M. A. M. Ed. Who was present at the time the answer book of the appellant was shown to him to the affect that: "There is lack of standard marking respectively on each reply in the answer book which bears uniform under marking of replies in the answer book." The Secretary of the Board recorded the following note : "I have read the whole script and also checked whether the answers were relevant to the question asked. I now feel convinced that gross injustice has been done to the candidate. It may be worthwhile to get opinion of an expert as well and, if he also considers it a case of extremely stiff marking, then it may be referred to the Board for getting whole lot of papers assigned to this Sub- examiner re-evaluated. Prof. A. S. Khalid, Chairman, Economics Deptt. G. C., Lahore may be requested to examine this script and give his comments regarding standard of marking."
' In due course, the matter was referred to Prof. A. S. Khalid, Chairman of the Economics Department of Government College, Lahore who opined that "there does not seem to be overall stiff-marking, though the examiner has failed to maintain his own standard of marking . In some cases." He evaluated the answer book of the appellant at 41, whereas, it was given 21 marks by the original examiner. Nonetheless, the application of the appellant for re-checking-so as to have the result accordingly, was rejected vide memo. Dated 30-5-1982 on the ground that "under the relevant rules of the Board only such answer books can be referred to the Review Committee wherein the Sub-Examiners award zero for the solution of question correctly attempted. But in your answer book under reference the solution of not a single question has been awarded zero, so this answer book cannot be referred to Review Committee."
3. Appellant filed a Constitutional Petition bearing No, W. P. 2548/1982 in which it was contended that the marking was arbitrary and there should have been a revision by the Chairman of the petitioner's marking through a Committee. The contentions were repelled for the reasons that examiners differ in their assessm ent and there was no legal provision for the request. This is vide order dated 4-7-1982. Hence, this Intra-Court Appeal.
4. In view of the judgment proposed by my learned brother I do not intend to go over the matter in extenso. I only wish to say that this Court does not interfere in marking of answer books by examiners of the educational institutions. It is their job and satisfaction as to what standard the students have attained. Since in this particular case, the Secretary of the Board examining body, after going through the 'whole script' has said that he was "convinced that gross injustice has been done to the candidate" and it in agreement with him, the Chairman of the Board has referred the matter to the eminent educationist, Prof. A. S. Khalid, Chairman of the concerned Department of Government College, Lahore, who has opined that the examiner "has failed to maintain his own standard of marking in some cases" and has awarded nearly double the marks i,e, 41 to the answer book of the appellant instead of 21 given by the Sub-Examiner and my learned brother has allowed the appeal, I am inclined to go with the proposed judgment. It is ordered accordingly.