' In this Constitutional petition it has been prayed that it may be declared that failure of respondents 1 and 2 to have the petitioner's paper in the subject of Surgery corrected is illegal, void and without lawful authority and as a consequence thereof a direction has also been sought against respondents 3 to 5 to furnish the copies of result of the petitioner in the subject of Surgery and the marks be corrected and the Petitioner be declared successful on the basis of the result prepared and provided by the Examiner (Convener).
2. The facts giving rise to this Constitution petition shortly stated are that the Petitioner appeared in the fmal professional M.B.,B.S. Examination held in September, 1993 under Roll No, 634 from Fatima Jinnah Medical College, Lahore. The result of the said examination was announced on 17-2-1994 and the Petitioner was declared to have failed in the subject of Surgery on account of which she was to be treated to have failed in whole of the said examination. The apprehension of the petitioner was that the marks shown to have been awarded to her in the practical examination were based on miscalculation or omission on the part of the examiners i,e, respondents 3 to 5 therefore she brought the same to the notice of respondent No,3 who according to the Petitioner expressed doubt that there could have been an error clerical or otherwise in tabulation of the result. According to the Petitioner he was willing to consult the record of the marks awarded to the Petitioner in the said practical examination if the case was referred to him by respondent No,1. The Petitioner made a representation on 1-3-1994 to respondent No,1 requesting for scrutiny of the relevant record in order to ensure that no injustice had been done on account of some miscalculation or omissions but the petitioner failed to get any response, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents in the first instance raised an objection that the award list prepared, signed and sent by the Examiners was final and the correctness of the same could not be challenged. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Regulation No, 23 of respondent No,1/ University at page 514 which is reproduced below in extent so:-- "The Vice-Chancellor or an Officer authorized by him may on receipts of an application in the prescribed form addressed to the Vice-Chancellor and accompanied by a fee of Rs,100 per subject (A & B) satisfy himself'---
(a) That the result of the applicant has been correctly compiled and declared (this will include checking of answer books, award lists and result sheets); ' In view of the this Regulation it is not possible to sustain the objection. This Regulation appears to have been made in order to correct any mistake committed in compilation of result of any student and to do complete justice as mistake could have been committed by Examiners while compiling the result.
4. The dispute is only as regards marks awarded to the petitioner in clinical part of the surgery examination. According to the award list out of 200 marks the petitioner was awarded 89 marks therefore she was declared to have failed. It may be mentioned here that there were two sets of Examiners of the said Clinical Examination known as short course and long course. Respondents 3 and 4 who were members of the said set of Examination of short course appeared before this Court on 14-7-1994 and stated that according to the record of the marks maintained by them of the short course the Petitioner was awarded 50 marks out of 100. Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad Randhawa who was one of the members of the long course examination of the said subject appeared before this Court on 29-8-1994 and again on 2-10-1994 with the record stated that according to the record maintained by him regarding award of marks in' long cases the petitioner obtained 59 marks. It is therefore clear that these 59 marks added to 50 marks obtained by the Petitioner in the short course show had obtained total 109 marks out of 200. Contrary to this, in the consolidation award list sent by the said set of the Examiners after tabulation of the result she was, however, shown to have obtained 89 marks thus declared as having failed. It is manifest from this regarding which I am fully convinced that while consolidating the marks awarded to the petitioner in short and long courses of the clinical examination the examiners committed a mistake in that instead of adding 59 marks to 50 marks obtained by the petitioner in the short course they added 39 marks. It may be mentioned here that in the final award list marks obtained by a student in short and long courses were not shown separately but after consolidating the said marks only the total of the same was indicated.
5. As disclosed in the writ petition of which there is no denial, the petitioner had excellent educational career and appears to be a brilliant student. In middle standard examination she obtained 704 marks out of 900. In Matriculation Examination she obtained 766 marks out of 850 meaning thereby (90%). In Intermediate Examination she obtained 788 marks out of 1100 meaning (71%). In B.Sc. Examination she obtained 480 marks out of 800 (60%). In First Professional she obtained 563 marks out of 900(62%). In 2nd Professional Examination she obtained 316 marks out of 500 (68%) , and in the 3rd Professional Examination she was awarded 396 marks out of 600 (60%).
6. In order to further satisfy myself as to what was her position as regards marks obtained by her in the written examination of the final M.B.,B.S. In question, I directed the Registrar of the University to place on the record the details of the marks obtained by her in the written papers. In the subject of Medicine she obtained 306 marks out of 500. In the subject of eye she obtained 90 marks out of
150. In the subject of E.N.T. She obtained 90 marks out of 150 and in the subject of Obstetrics and Gynecology, she obtained 169 marks out of 300. It is only in the subject of Surgery which is in dispute that she has been shown to have obtained 89 marks out of 200 and thus was declared failed in the said examination as a whole.
7. In the light of the above facts it is clear that a mistake occurred while tabulating the result of short and long courses of clinical examination in the subject of Surgery in that the Petitioner was wrongly shown to have obtained 89 marks out of 200 instead of 109 marks actually awarded to her.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that apart from Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad Randhawa, Professor Masood Butt, Professor Dr. Zaffar Aziz Khan and Professor Dr. Shabbir Naru there were other two Doctors also who were the members of the Panel of the said examination and the Court may call them also. I am not satisfied that in the presence of statement made by respondents 3 and 4 and Professor Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad Randhawa on the basis of the record maintained by them about the marks awarded to the Petitioner in short and long courses, there is no need to call the others because the record was with respondents 3 and 4 and Professor Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad Randhawa.
9. The objection of the learned counsel for the respondents that this Court is not vested with the jurisdiction to interfere in the matter, has no force as in such a case where injustice was done to a student on account of mistake in the tabulation of the result, this Court could legitimately interfere in the Constitutional Jurisdiction. This view finds support from judgment dated 17-4-1993 passed in Writ Petition No, 1509 of 1993 in which in similar circumstances direction was issued against the University to correct the mistake.
10. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is accepted. The Punjab University Authorities are hereby directed to correct the error by treating the Petitioner to have been awarded 109 marks in clinical examination of surgery and not 89 marks as shown in the final award list. They are further directed that petitioner's result shalt be declared forthwith in accordance therewith. The parties are left to bear their own costs.