' M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment dated 15-1- 1963 of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, whereby an Intra-Court Appeal of respondent Ali Mir against the dismissal of his writ petition was accepted.
2. Ali Mir respondent, who had failed in the subject of Economics at the Intermediate Examination held by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, in Spring 1981 took the Compartmental Examination held in Autumn that year but again remained unsuccessful, having obtained 34 marks out of 100 in Paper 'A' and 21 out of 100 in Paper 'B'. He applied on 11-3-1982 for re- checking of his answer-book of Paper 'B' but was informed by letter dated 30-3-1982 that in the re- checking no error was found and that his result had been correctly declared. A note was, however, appended to the letter to the effect that he could inspect his answer-book in the office within a week's time, which he availed. On 21-4-1982 he moved another application addressed to the Chairman of the Board, attaching therewith a certificate, bearing the same date, of one Mst.
Shafqat Ara, M. A., M. Ed., who, according to the respondent, had also seen the answer-book at the time of its inspection by him. The certificate was to the effect that there was a lack of standard marking on each reply in the answer-book which bore uniform undernumbering of replies and that a re-examination of the same was likely to result in enhancement of the total marks. He, therefore, prayed in the application "to restore standard marking of Paper 'B' of Economics of humble petitioner by the Head Examiner or through appointment of a third examiner". The Secretary of the Board commented on the application that be was convinced after reading the whole script that gross injustice had been done to the respondent and that it would be worthwhile to get opinion of an expert and if he considered that it was a case of extremely stiff marking, the matter be referred to the Board for getting the whole lot of papers assigned to this Sub-Examiner, re-evaluated. The Secretary also suggested that Professor A. S. Khalid, Chairman Economics Department, Government College, Lahore, be requested to examine the script in question and "give his comments regarding standard of Marking. With the approval of the Chairman of the Board, the answer-book in question alongwith 20 other answer-books was referred to Professor A. S. Khalid who expressed the opinion 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". Professor A. S. Khalid re-evaluated the respondent's answer-book at 41 marks against 21 given by the original examiner.
Nevertheless, the application of the respondent was rejected by letter dated 30-5-1982 for the reason 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" which was not so in the respondent's case.
3. The respondent challenged the order by filing a writ petition praying that his result in Economics Paper 'B' be declared to be without lawful authority and a direction be issued to the authorities of the Board "to honour the marks given by Independent Examiner to whom the petitioner's Economics Paper 'B' was trusted by the respondents themselves for re-examination". The petition was, however, dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge on 4-7-1982, which dismissal was the subject-matter of the Intra-Court Appeal which was accepted as aforesaid.
4. The respondent's contention before the Appellate Bench of the High Court was that after the matter had been referred, in the result of the Chairman's order, to an expert examiner who had re- evaluated his answer-book at 41 marks as against 21, it was not open to the Board to drop the matter without further referring it to the Review Committee ; that the earlier marking was a case of "complete injustice" and that as such the withholding of review of the result was not justified, particularly when the Chairman had the requisite power in this regard under General Regulation No, 10 of Chapter IV of the Board's Regulations and section 14(4) of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act (XIII of 1976). The plea taken on behalf of the Board, however, was that under the relevant rules, a candidate could only get his answer-book re- checked for the specific purpose, namely, to ensure that totals had been rightly brought forward, that no question had remained unmarked and that the answer-book or any portion thereof had not been changed or removed, but that a re-evaluation of the answer-book was not permissible except where zero mark had been assigned against a correct solution in which case the matter could be referred to a Review Committee whose report, if in its opinion injustice had been done to the candidate, was to be placed before the Board for orders. The maintainability of the writ petition itself was also assailed on the ground that no rule of the Board having been violated, the issuing of a writ would amount to an interference with the internal autonomy and functioning of the Board.
For this, support was sought from R. v. Dunsheath (1), Thorne v. University of London (2), Board of Intermediate v. Massadaq Naseem (3) and Muhammad Sayyar v. Vice-Chancellor University of Peshawar (4). The plea of the Board was, however, rejected upon the view that the case appeared to be one of basic injustice and real hardship and that "the rectification of a wrong requires no rule because it is a must". The appeal was, therefore, accepted, the order of the Board refusing to refer the case to the Review Committee was declared to be without lawful authority and the Chairman of the Board was directed to refer the case of the respondent to the Review Committee.
5. The appellants, that is the Chairman and the Deputy Controller Secrecy of the Board, petitioned to this Court for leave to appeal whereupon leave was granted to consider whether the Board had contravened any law in refusing the respondent's plea to have his answer-book re-evaluated and if so whether the High Court was justified in its writ jurisdiction to direct the Board to re-evaluate the same. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) (1950) 2 A E R 741 (2) (1966) 2 A E R 338
(3) PLD 1973 Lab. 600 (4) PLD 1974 SC 257 {{FOOT NOTE}}
6. The provision enabling a candidate to have his answer-book rechecked is contained in rule 5.15 of the Rules of the Board, which permits a B re-checking only for the following purposes : "(1) 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."
' There is no provision in this rule for re-evaluating an answer-book. It appears that the Chairman had on an earlier occasion taken some action in relation to marking by a sub-examiner of answer- books of Spring Examination 1976 involving loss of answer-books and marking in more than one handwriting, which action when placed before the Board had been approved and by a resolution it had desired that "some thinking must be done about rectifying such injustices in individual cases".
The matter was accordingly referred to a sub-committee and on the receipt of its report a resolution was passed on 31-8-1981 to the effect that where zero mark had been given by the examiner on a correct solution, the answer-book could be referred to a Review Committee and if that Committee came to the view that injustice had been done to the candidate, the matter would be placed by the Chairman before the Board for its decision. It is obvious that the respondent's case not being that he had been awarded zero mark against a correct solution in any question he could not invoke the resolution dated 31-8-1981. No other rule was cited conferring any right on a candidate to compel the Board to refer his answer-book for re-evaluation. Reliance was, however, placed by learned counsel for the respondent on the powers of the Chairman contained in the provisions of General Regulation No, 10 of Chapter IV of the Board's Regulations and subsection (4) of section 14 of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act (XIII of 1976) which read :- "General Regulation 10.-Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Regulations and Rules, if, in the opinion of the Chairman, there is a case of real hardship due to causes beyond the control of a student or a candidate for an examination of the Board, the Chairman may pass such orders as he may deem necessary to relieve that hardship. The orders of the Chairman, passed under this Regulation, shall be reported to the Board for information : ' Provided that such orders of the Chairman shall not alter the award of marks, obtained by a candidate or his result, determined on the basis of that award." (Underlining* is ours).
"14(4). It shall be the duty of the Chairman to ensure that the provisions of this Act and the regulations and rules are faithfully observed and carried out, and he shall exercise all powers necessary for this purpose."
' It is clear that the power under General Regulation 10 in view of the proviso is not available for re- assessing the marks. The contention, however, was that injustice to the respondent being apparent, the Chairman was under a legal duty, and had the necessary power in that behalf, to redres the same and that as such the High Court was justified in granting the madamus.
7. Mr. K. H. Khurshid, appearing for the appellants, reiterated their stand that there having been no violation of any rule or law by the Board, the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court did not extend to issuing [Here in italics] ' the writ. He urged that the Board was an autonomous body, competent to make its decisions, and even if a decision be erroneous, the High Court could not interfere with it unless the same was violative of any law or rule having the force of law.
8. In R. v. Dunsheath, where the Chairman of convocation had declined to summon an extraordinary meeting of the convocation to discuss, inter alia, the refusal of a school connected with the university to re-employ one of its teachers, it was held that the question whether an officer of the university had refused to perform a duty placed on him by the statutes of the university was a domestic matter and, therefore, one essentially for the visitor, and the application for mandamus would be refused. In Thorne v. University of Londone it was clearly laid down that the High Court had 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 within the exclusive jurisdiction of the visitor of the university. Both these English authorities alongwith others were noted with approval by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in Board of Intermediate v. Massadaq Naseem and it was held : "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 atmosphere of the Board, and should not be ordinarily allowed to be dragged to the law Court."
' The case in hand also attracts the ruling of this Court in Muhammad Husain v. Sikandar (1) that : "It is wholly wrong to consider that the constitutional provision was designed to empower the High Court to interfere with the decision of a Court or Tribunal of inferior jurisdiction, merely because in AS opinion the decision is wrong. In that case, it would make the High Court's jurisdiction indistinguishable from that exerciseable is a full-fledged appeal, which plainly is not the intention of the Constitution-maker. When there is jurisdiction to decide a particular matter then there is jurisdiction to decide it rightly or wrongly and the fact that the decision is incorrect does not render the decision without jurisdiction."
9. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on Controller of Examinations, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education v. Waqar Hussain Hashmi (2) but the same can hardly furnish an answer to the question arising before us, firstly, because there the question was of allowing a candidate to appear in practicals in the next examination who had failed to take the practicals earlier on account of illness and, secondly because that judgment had not been passed in the writ jurisdiction but in a revision arising from a civil suit.
10. The respondent's case in fact appears to have its basis on the certificate issued by Mrs. Shafqat Ara and the re-assessm ent made by Professor A. S. Khalid. As regards Mrs. Shafqat Ara, we have not been told in what capacity she had issued the certificate or had even been entitled to be present {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1974 SC 139 (2) PLD 1977 Lah. 1029 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' at the time of the inspection of the answer-book by the respondent. It also appears that her address given by the lady in the certificate, that is, 82, New Anarkali, Lahore, is the same as that of the respondent's father counsel in the writ petition. As regards Professor A. S. Khaki, the mere fact that the Chairman had referred the answer-book to him would not per se create any right in the respondent to enforce a reference to the Review Committee. The requirements for such reference were clearly not met in the respondent's case.
11. We are thus satisfied that [the respondent had no case made out before the High Court for issuance of a writ in terms prayed by him and as such the impugned judgment of the I. C. A. Bench granting a writ is not sustainable in law. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside but in the circumstances of the case we made no order as to costs.