' The petitioner appeared in Autumn 1981, F. Sc. (Pre-Engineering) Examination and on 31st December, 1981, attempted his practical Chemistry paper. On 8th March, 1982, the Examiner reported in respect of 5 students, that the marks awarded on their answer books were not justified and they apparently influenced Rana Mahboob Ahmad their Examiner to help them with more marks.
2. The report (R/1) dated 9th March, 1982, was also obtained from an expert who stated that the answers did not justify the marks given to the petitioner. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 22nd April, 1982, on that basis, under rules 6.8 (ii) and 6.8 (iv) of the Calendar of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore. He appeared before the Disciplinary Committee on 11th May, 1982, which disqualified him on 2nd June, 1982, from passing the relevant examination and debarred him from three subsequent consecutive examinations. His appeal also failed and hence this petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel that it is possible that the marks awarded to the petitioner were not justified but there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was in any way responsible for the same. It is argued that a possibility cannot be ruled out that the Examiner, either did not have the time and did not care to look at the paper or may be he himself was not qualified to evaluate the answers. In this view of the matter, it is pleaded that the petitioner should not be punished and his career ruined for no fault of his own.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent defends the order and states that there is a presumption that the petitioner might have influenced the examiner as otherwise he would not do what he did.
He further states that the Board selects experienced and careful examiners for the marking of answer books. He relies also on Rahat Siddiqui v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and Rahat Siddiqui v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education in support of his plea.
5. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments as referred to by the learned counsel, I find that there is nothing on record to even suggest that the petitioner had in any way influenced the examiner or pursuaded him to award marks which his answers did not justify. It is possible as stated by the petitioner that either the examiner was not careful or did not evaluate marks properly or was himself ignorant of the subject. Be that as it may, as very severe punishment had been awarded to the petitioner, there must have been some link between the act and the action taken. There is, however, not an iota of evidence to support the respondents plea and so it cannot be maintained.
' In this view of the matter, the impugned order is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The parties shall bear their own costs. PLD 1975 Lah 257 1977 SC MR 213