1. SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The above appeal with the leave of this Court is directed against an interview order passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court in a pending writ petition whereby he observed that the question of discrimination raised by the respondent in the petition could not be decided without looking into the lot of answer books examined by the same examiners and accordingly, directed the examiners of papers ' A' and 'B' to appear in Court on the next date of hearing along with answer books. Leave was granted in the above case to consider the following legal contentions:-- "Leave to appeal is granted to examine whether the learned Single Judge was right in summoning the Examiner as well as the receipt to find out if there had been correct marking. The operation of the order of learned Single Judge of the High Court is suspended meanwhile."
2. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution was not justified in summoning the answer books of whole lot of the examinees in order to evaluate and find out whether, the examiner had carried out the marking of numbers in the case of respondent/examinee correctly or not? The marking of numbers on answer book is a technical job performed by experts which the High Court is not expected to undertake in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution. The jurisdiction of High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is principally meant for correcting the jurisdictional error in the order and proceedings of tribunals and executive authorities. This jurisdiction cannot be invoked for obtaining decisions on merits which the functionaries alone are entitled to take under the law. Similarly, the plea of discrimination raised by the respondent in her petition before the High Court has to be decided by the Court on the basis of admitted and proved facts brought before it without entering into the process of roving enquiry into disputed facts by the Court.
3. ' We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Judge in Chambers, before passing the impugned order should have first examined the scope of proceedings before him and consider the provisions of relevant statute under which relief could be granted to the respondent.
4. ' The learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the order of High Court vehemently contended that as the career of respondent is at stake and no remedy is available to her under the relevant statute, the High Court in order to do complete justice can call for answer book of the respondent and others in order to compare whether the marking was carried on correctly in the case of respondent.
5. ' We are unable to accept the above contention. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent if accepted will lead to dangerous consequences, as it will open the door for every unsuccessful candidate to challenge the result of his examination in Court thus involving the educational institutions into unending and unethical litigations and bringing the whole system of examination in vogue, at stake. The solemnity of educational institutions and process of examination cannot be sacrified on the altar of expediency. As earlier stated by us, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is meant for correcting the errors of jurisdictional nature. Therefore, in order to succeed, the respondent must first satisfy that the issue brought by her before the Court is justiciable under Article 199 of the Constitution. The learned Judge in Chambers, therefore, could not pass the impugned order without first determining these basic questions regarding jurisdiction of Court in the matter. We, accordingly, accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct that the writ petition filed by the respondent will be disposed of by the learned Judge in Chambers without asking for production of the whole lot of answer books examined by the examiners who examined the answer book of respondent. There wirl be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.