' The petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition for a direction to the respondent to award him average of the marks (obtained by him in other papers) in English 'B' which was lost.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner appeared in the BA. Ist Annual Examination 1992 under Roll No,60404. His Examination Centre was at the Pilot Secondary School Centre No,42, Wandat Colony, Lahore. The petitioner appeared in all the papers but his result was not announced whereupon he approached the Examination Branch and was informed that his answer sheet of English Paper B was lost. The petitioner filed an application on 16-3-1993 for award of average marks in the lost paper but the. University Authorities did not do the needful despite lapse of considerable time. The petitioner claimed that he had cleared the other papers obtaining good marks. The details of his marks in other papers are stated below:--- English Paper 'A' 41/100 Islamic Studies 117/200 (Elective)
Political Science 75/200 Persian (Optional) 80/100 Pak Studies and 57/100 Islamic Studies ' His average marks in the above referred papers come to 53%.
3. The respondent submitted the report and parawise comments in the Court stating therein that the petitioner's answer sheet of English Paper 'B' was not received in the University from the Centre Superintendent. It was further stated that a letter was addressed to the Centre Superintendent concerned on 25-8-1992 enquiring about the missing paper who replied through his letter dated 26-5-1993 that he had submitted all the record of the Centre to the University. Thereafter, the University Authorities made efforts to trace out the missing answer sheet but failed to find it out. In the comments contents of para. 5 relating to marks obtained by the petitioner in other papers were not denied. Similarly, the submission of the application by the petitioner on 16-3-1993 (Annexure 'A') was not denied in the comments. It may be mentioned here that the respondent University did not file any written statement but relied upon the report/parawise comments already filed.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner did take his Examination in English Paper B under Roll No,60404. The Centre Superintendent in his reply (attached as Annexure R/1 with the comments of the respondent) has confirmed that he had deposited the entire record of the Centre with the University. Meaning thereby that the petitioner's answer sheet was also sent to the respondent University. The noting made at the end of the petitioner's application dated 16-3-1993 (Annexure 'A') by the concerned University official gives the following particulars of the candidate:-- {{TABLE}} Roll No.Roll No.SubjectPaper 60404 91153EnglishB Copy No.CentreGroup {{TABLE}} ' The correctness of the above particulars of the candidate is not denied by the respondent. This fairly establishes that the petitioner's answer sheet in the disputed paper was received in the Secrecy Branch and fictitious Roll Number was allocated to it. It must have been forwarded to the concerned Examiner. It is strange that the University Authorities did not hold any inquiry to ascertain as to when and by whom the petitioner's answer sheet was lost. Had the Examiner not received the answer sheet of the petitioner, he would have definitely conveyed it to the University Authorities. The University Authorities despite the knowledge that the petitioner's answer sheet was lost, did not even care to enquire from the examiner as to whether he had received the petitioner's answer sheet or not. The respondent claimed that the Incharge Secrecy Branch had found the petitioner's answer sheet missing and sent a letter to the Centre Superintendent on 25-8-1992.
However, a copy of the alleged letter has not been placed on the record. It may be mentioned that the examination had taken place on 29-6-1992 and the Centre Superintendent must have sent the answer sheets of the candidates of his Centre within a day or so. Had the petitioner's answer sheet not been received in the Secrecy Branch then the Centre Superintendent ought to have been promptly contacted. The claim that the Incharge of the Secrecy Branch had sent the letter on 25- 8-1992 stating therein that the petitioner's answer sheet was not received, is not reconcilable with the noting made by the concerned University officials on the petitioner's application dated 16-3- 1993 giving the number of the petitioner's answer sheet (881536) and the Fictitious Roll No,91153. As observed above, this fairly establishes that the petitioner's answer sheet bearing Nq.881536 pertaining to English Paper B was received and then fictitious Roll No,91153 was allocated to the same. After allocation of the fictitious roll numbers, in the normal official course, the answer sheets are despatched to the Examiners. No report of the Examiner has been placed on the record to show that he did not receive the petitioner's answer sheet in English Paper B. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner had taken his examination in English Paper B, his answer sheet was sent by the Centre Superintendent and received by the University Authorities and the Examiner in the normal course. Whenever it is established that a candidate has taken his examination, then if his answer sheet is found missing in one or more papers, the burden to show that it was not received by the Centre Superintendent or the Secrecy Branch or the Examiner, lies, entirely on the University Authorities. The candidate has no access to the record or control over the concerned officials to establish as to whether his answer sheet was lost by the Centre Superintendent, the Secrecy Branch or the Examiner. Therefore, in the lost paper, the petitioner was entitled to award of average marks obtained by him in other papers by virtue of the provisions of the 1st proviso to Regulation No,6 relating to conduct of examinations, which is reproduced below:---
(6) If a candidate's paper is lost after having been received by the Superintendent of the examination or by one of his assistants, and if he passes in all other subjects of the examination, he may be required to appear in that one paper which is lost on a date fixed by the Controller of Examinations, and if he obtains pass marks he shall be deemed to have passed the examination. In case of dispute as to whether a candidate's paper was duly received or not, the finding of the Controller of Examinations, subject to the approval of the Vice-Chancellor, shall be final: "Provided that if an answer book/s received by an Examiner is/are lost before or after evaluation, average of the marks obtained by the candidate in others in which he has appeared shall be awarded to him in the said paper. The candidate shall, however, have the option either to avail the average of the marks or to reappear in the paper ' The petitioner's claim of award of average marks finds support from judgments in the cases of Dr. Anwar Mahmud Ijaz v. The University of the Punjab through Vice-Chancellor and 2 others 1993 CLC 1143, Shahzad Munawar Butt v. Vice-Chancellor, University of the Punjab 1990 CLC 316 and Afraz Ahmad v. University of the Punjab through Controller Examinations 1991 CLC 1283 relied upon by the petitioner's learned counsel.
' For the foregoing discussion, this petition is accepted and the respondent is directed to grant average marks (obtained by the petitioner in other papers) in English Paper B and issue him a fresh result card accordingly, within a month.