' Miss Robin Afzal, petitioner herein, appeared in the First Annual Intermediate Examination held by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Gujranwala, in Humanities Group. According to the result declared by respondent No,2, she secured 811 out of 1100 marks. She, however, learnt that although she had been originally awarded 69 marks in English Paper B by the Sub-Examiner but those marks were reduced to 60 by the Head Examiner. She protested against the deduction of her marks but having failed in her attempt to persuade the respondent to grant her the desired relief, she has now approached this Court by filing this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. In the report and parawise comments, it has been admitted by the respondents that the Sub- Examiner had, in the first instance, awarded 69 marks to the petitioner in English Paper B. It is further stated that, however, the marking of 32 answer books was found by the Head Examiner defective and these anwer books, including the answer book of the petitioner were sent back to the Sub- Examiner, to suitably revise the marks, who agreeing with the Head Examiner reduced the marks awarded to the petitioner to 60 from 69.
3. In support of this petition, the only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that according to clause (i) of Regulation 39 of section 4 of Chapter IV of the Calendar of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Gujranwala, the Head Examiner had no jurisdiction to reduce the marks awarded by the Sub-Examiner and, therefore, the impugned action of the respondents is without any lawful authority.
' On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the reduction in the marks was made by the Sub-Examiner through pursuant to the direction given by the Head Examiner and, there has been no violation of the Regulation referred to above.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record produced by the respondents, I am of the view that this petition cannot succeed. Both the learned counsel have referred to the same provision, namely, Regulation 39 of Chapter IV of the Calendar of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Gujranwala, which reads as under:-- "39.--(i) In no case shall the Head Examiner himself/herself increase or decrease the marks assigned to any paper by a Sub-Examiner.
(ii) In case of difference of 10% or less marks in evaluation of the candidates' answer books arising between a Head Examiner and his/her Sub-Examiner, the Head Examiner shall return such answer books of the candidates to Sub-Examiner. The Sub-Examiner shall change the marks already assigned by him/her according to the instructions of his/her Head Examiner.
(iii) In case of a difference of more than 10% or less marks in evaluation of the candidates' answer books arising between a Head Examiner and his/her Sub-Examiner, the Chairman shall appoint a third Examiner or a moderator and the marks assigned by him/her shall be considered as fmal.
However, this rule shall not apply to the answer books checked in Test Installment.
(iv) The appointment of third Examiner or moderator shall be made amongst at least Headmasters/Headmistresses of High Schools in case of Secondary School Examination and at least Principals or Assistant Professors in case of Intermediate Examination."
5. Before proceeding to analyse the regulation in question, it is necessary to notice certain facts which have emerged from the record produced by the respondents. According to the marking on the original answer book, the petitioner was awarded 69 marks by the Sub-Examiner. However, the answer book was examined by the Head Examiner alongwith certain other answer books, who recorded the following observation:-- 'Even serious mistakes ignored. Carelessly marksed Qs. Revised.
(Sd.) Head Examiner."
' While recording this observation, he proposed reduction of the marks of the petitioner in Question No,II from 7 to 5, in Question No,III from 7 to 5 and in Question No,IV from 33 to 28, thus making a total of 60. The anwer book was sent back to the Sub-Examiner, alongwith other answer books, who re-marked the same and awarded 60 marks. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Head Examiner could not have himself reduced the marks assigned by the Sub-Exmainer in view of clause (i) of Regulation 39 and, therefore, he acted without any lawful authority in reducing the marks of the petitioner from 69 to 60.
6. This contention of the learned counsel, in the circumstances of the present case, has no force.
Even the factual premise on which this argument is founded is not correct. It is evident from the record that although the proposal to reduce the marks by 9 had emanated from the Head Examiner, but the Sub-Examiner agreeing with the same had reduced the marks from 69 to 60. It cannot, therefore, be said that the reduction was made by the Head Examiner and not the Sub- Examiner.
7. Be that as it may, the interpretation being placed on Regulation 39 by the learned counsel cannot be accepted. While it is correct that according to clause (i) of Regulation 39, the Head Examiner can neither increase nor ,decrease marks assigned by the Sub-Examiner, but this clause cannot be read in isolation and has to be construed conjunctively with the other clauses (ii) and
(iii) of the Regulation. A reading of these clauses would show that the Head Examiner has to make his own assessm ent about the marks awarded by the Sub-Examiner, after re-evaluating the answers given by the candidate. If he is of the view that the marks awarded by the Examiner are deficient or excessive to the extent of 10%, he shall return the answer books of the candidates to the Sub-Examiner, who is required to change the marks assigned by him, according to the instructions of the Head Examiner. If, however, the difference in evaluation by the Head Examiner and Sub- Examiner is more than 10% a third Examiner or a moderator is to be appointed by the Chairman of the Board and the marks assigned by him are to be considered as final.
8. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Head Examiner himself cannot evaluate and mark the paper is misconceived and cannot be accepted. For the applicability of clauses (ii) and (iii) it is necessary that re-evaluation and marking must be done by the Head Examiner also for, in the absence of this exercise, it cannot be ascertained as to whether the difference between the marks awarded by Sub-Examiner and the Head Examiner is less or more than 10%. If the interpretation of the learned counsel that the Head Examiner cannot re-evaluate the paper is accepted, it would negate the whole idea of appointing the Head Examiner which would be mere exercise in futility. Moreover, in the absence of any evaluation by the Head Examiner, it cannot be found out as to whether clause (ii) or (iii) would apply in a particular case.
9. In the present case, as is obvious from the answer book of the petitioner herself, the Head Examiner after noticing that the Sub-Examiner had acted carelessly and had ignored even serious mistakes was of the view that the marks awarded to the petitioner were excessive by 9 marks. He, therefore, returned the paper to the Sub-Examiner, who thereafter proceeded to reduce the marks from 69 to 60. As the difference between the evaluation of the Sub-Examiner and the Head Examiner was admittedly less than 10%, the course adopted by the Head Examiner and the Sub- Examiner was unexceptionable and cannot be objected to on any reasonable premises.
' For the reasons aforesaid, this petition is found to be without any merit. It is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.