IRSHAD HASSAN KHAN, J.---This Intro-Court Appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 arises out of order dated 5-10-1993 passed in W.P. No. 7121/93.
2. The facts in brief are that the appellant appeared in F.Sc. Examination (Autumn), 1992 held by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad. She was declared successful by obtaining 700 marks. Being dissatisfied with the result about Urdu Paper `B' and Chemistry Paper `B' she applied for rechecking of these papers, on 10-2-1993. Her application was marked to the Committee comprising Assistant Secretary (Finance) and Assistant Secretary (Stores). They found no discrepancy in Urdu Paper `B' and 3 marks were added in Chemistry Paper `B' against Question No. l pursuant to the recommendations made by the Committee. The appellant being dissatisfied with the treatment meted out to her application, filed W.P. No. 7121/93 contending that the marks awarded to the appellant by the Sub-Examiner/s could not have been reduced by the respective Head Examiners and in case any revision is made in respect of the awards, the same must be initialled or signed by the Head Examiner. In the instant case it was argued that reduction of marks by the Head Examiner in Urdu Paper `B' and Chemistry Paper `B' having not been signed or initialled by the Head Examiners, the marks initially awarded by the Sub-Examiners should have been counted towards the grand totals. The Controller of Examinations appeared before the learned Single Judge, alongwith the record of the case. He admitted that the Head Examiner did not initial or sign inside the answer-books while reducing the marks but the award-lists were duly signed by him which tallied with the final marks awarded to the appellant in the disputed papers. He also stated that the final marking as against each question in every paper is stated in the award-lists.
The disputed papers as well as the award-lists were produced before the learned Single Judge and it is an admitted fact that there was no discrepancy in the award-lists vis-a-vis the answer- books. During the pendency of the writ petition the Controller of Examinations of the respondent- Board stated that in Urdu Paper `B' against Question No.6, the Sub-Examiner awarded 5 marks. This was not revised by the Head Examiner and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to 5 marks as against 3 marks. The Controller of Examinations conceded to rectify the error. The learned Single Judge also disposed of the writ petition holding that the appellant was entitled to addition of 2 marks as against question No.6 in Urdu Paper `B'. As regards Chemistry Paper `B', the learned Single Judge did not agree with the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that unless revision of the marks by the Head Examiner was initialled or signed, the same was invalid. The appellant withdrew her grievance in relation to Chemistry Paper `B' about the failure to add 3 marks against Question No.l as she had obtained 10 marks instead of 7 marks.
3. Mr. M.D. Tahir, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that 3 marks of Chemistry Paper `B' have not been transferred and counted on the 1st Page of the Answer-book in that the appellant obtained 10 marks in one question but in the total on 1st page only 7 marks were counted instead of 10 marks. It was argued that the Committee realizing the error directed the Sub---Examiner to add 2 marks against one question but the Sub-Examiner cut off these marks instead of adding the same. We have seen the Chemistry Paper `B' which shows that against Question No.8, 6 marks were awarded by the Sub--Examiner which were treated as correct by the Head Examiner as well. The Controller of Examinations pointed out that a part of Question No.9 was solved by the appellant for the second time while answering Question No.8 This part was answered towards the end of Question No.8 and it was awarded 1 mark. The rest of Question No.9 was solved by the appellant under Question No.9 and 1/2 mark each for two parts thereof were awarded by the Sub--Examiner.
By adding one mark awarded against part of Question No.9 succeeding Question No.8, was also added to the tally against Question No.9 and, therefore, the appellant was awarded 2 marks for the same by both the Sub-Examiner and the Head Examiner. Referring to the details available in the answer-book of the appellant in Chemistry Paper `B', he submitted that there was no discrepancy discernible on the face of the record which required re--doing, as alleged. We have perused the Answer-book and find that the assertion being made by the Controller of Examinations of the respondent --Board is correct.
4. Mr. M.D. Tahir learned counsel for the appellant, next contended that in Urdu Paper `B' against Question No.l the Head Examiner after cutting the digit `6' made it `4' during the revision but the cutting bears no signatures and, therefore, it appears ex facie dubious. Similarly, against Question No.4 the Sub-Examiner awarded 7 marks which were reduced to 4 by the Head Examiner by cutting the digit `T without signatures. As pointed out by the learned Single Judge, it was not necessary for the Head Examiner to initial the deduction as long as he signs the final award-list which tallies with the marking made by him. It was further argued that in Urdu Paper `B' against Question No.8 the Sub-Examiner awarded 22 marks which were reduced to 14 marks by the Head Examiner. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Sub--Examiner initially awarded 14 marks then it was revised to 16 and finally he made an award of 22 marks. The Head Examiner had made the reduction of marks from 22 to 14 without any rhyme and reason. The Controller of Examinations admitted that in Urdu Paper `B' against Question No.8 the Sub--Examiner had enhanced the marks from 14 to 22 but the Head Examiner in the exercise of his powers under Instruction No.2.8 of Hand Book for Examiners Instructions revised the award legally. He further submitted that in terms of the aforesaid Instructions if the Sub-Examiner was not in agreement with the Head Examiner in the matter of reduction of the marks by the Head Examiner, he could have brought the matter to the notice of theController of Examinations for appointment of a 3rd Examiner. Here, no such move was made by the Sub-Examiner and as he had signed the award-list, which was also signed by the Head Examiner himself, the matter attained finality.
5. Rule 15 of Chapter 5 of the Calendar of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad provides that the candidates appearing in all the examinations conducted by the Board are permitted to get their answer --books rechecked to the effect that:
(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-book; or/and
(4) the answer-book has not been changed;
(5) the answer-books of each examination will be .disposed of after six months from the date of the declaration of the result except the disputed cases.
Candidates desirous of getting their answer-books checked in this way, would have to apply for this purpose within 30 days of the declaration of the result and pay Rs.200 as fee for rechecking each paper.
In the instant case the grievance voiced by the appellant through her application in relation to Urdu Paper `B' and Chemistry Paper `B' was enquired into under the afterquoted rule and except to the extent of addition of 2 marks against Question No.6 of Urdu Paper `B', as recommended by the Committee, it was found that there was no error or mistake in the matter of making final award in relation to the disputed papers. The appellant cannot be permitted to directly or indirectly ask for re-evaluation of her answer-books. As a matter of fact it is the case of the appellant herself that she had applied for re-checking and if re-checking has been made strictly in accord with the provisions of rule 15 ibid, she can hardly perpetuate her alleged claim in this appeal.
In view of the above we find no force in the appeal which is hereby dismissed in limine.