' AJMAL MIAN, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 6-6-1994 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore high Court in Writ Petition No,9814 of 1992 filed by the respondent seeking a direction against the petitioners to declare his result in respect of Paper V (M.Sc. Math, Part-I), allowing the same.
2. The brief facts are that the respondent appeared in M.Sc. Examination in Mathematics in the Annual Examination of 1989 (held in the month of November, 1990), under Roll No,5503. His center was Government Muslim Model High School, Urdu Bazar, Lahore, It appears that while paper No V (Topology & Functional Analysis) was in progress, some students attacked inter alia the above center and thus caused disturbance. It appears that the petitioners gave choice to the students either to reappear in the aforesaid paper or could opt to have 10 grace marks in the above paper.
According to the respondent, he opted for the latter. It seems that a controversy arose on the question, whether the respondent had submitted the answer book of the above paper as it was found in the official record of the petitioners. The respondent made efforts to get redress from the petitioners, but eventually he filed the aforesaid Writ Petition. In the above Writ Petition he relied upon a certificate dated 14-3-1991 issued by the Superintendent of the above examination center, certifying that the respondent, who had appeared against Roll No,5503, had handed over to him the above answer book, which he deposited with the Secrecy Branch of the Punjab University. It appears that during the pendency of the above writ petition, petitioner ND.1 was directed to examine to matter in terms of para. 6 of the Calendar of the University of the Punjab for the year 1990, Vol.1, hereinafter referred to as the Calendar. Pursuant thereof, he sent for the above Superintendent of the Examination Centre and the respondent. After examining the Superintendent, he passed the following order on a date not legible:-- "As ordered by the High Court, the Centre Superintendent was summoned. He made a statement which is available at pages 1 and 2. This is explanatory. As stated by him as marked at 'A', he stated that he does not exactly remember whether he handed over the Answer Book or not. He neither prepared the Secrecy Memo nor he counted the Answer Books. Therefore, it cannot be said whether the Answer Book of the candidate was in the lot he handed over to the Secrecy Branch or not. In the circumstances the candidate cannot be given the average of marks. The candidate was present when the Centre Superintendent made the statement."
' However, the learned Judge in Chambers allowed the abovementioned writ petition by the impugned judgment in the following terms:-- "For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is accepted holding that the petitioner is entitled to the average of marks in the disputed paper on the basis of the performance in other papers which, according to him, is 60.5% and is not denied by the respondents. The respondents are further directed to declare the result of petitioner forthwith. There is no order as to costs."
' The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard Ch. Muhammad Farooq, learned Sr.ASC appearing for the petitioners, and Mr. Muhammad Yousaf Aasim, learned ASC for the respondent/caveator. The thrust of the arguments of Ch. Muhammad Farooq was that under above para. 6 of the Calendar, the Controller of Examinations with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor, was the competent authority to, decide on the question, whether a candidate's paper was duly received or not and that this . Finding of fact could not have been recorded by the High. Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
' On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Yousaf Aasim, learned counsel for the respondent, has urged that the respondent cannot be made to suffer on account of any negligence/omission on the part of the Superintendent of the Centre or any other functionary of the University. He has further submitted that the respondent had obtained first class marks in the other subjects and, therefore, there was no reason for him not to have submitted his answer book of the above paper.
4. It may be pertinent to reproduce above Para. 6 of the Calendar, which reads as follows:-- "6. If a candidate's paper is lost after having been received by the Superintendent of the Examination Centre or by one of his assistant, 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 Chancellors, shall be final: ' Provided that if an answer book received by an Examiner is/are lost before or after evaluation, average of the marks obtained by the candidate in other papers 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 re-appear in the paper: ' Provided further that the benefit of grant of average marks will not be given to candidates in cases of re-checking of answer books after declaration of their results, if their answer book/s is/are lost at the time of re-:.Hacking. They will, however, have the option to re-appear in the paper/s in the next examination, if otherwise eligible. The candidate will also be allowed to claim refund of fee for re-checking."
5. From the above-quoted Para. 6 of the Calendar, it is evident that the Controller of Examinations' finding on the question, whether an answer book is received nor not, is to be approved by the Vice- Chancellor. There is no indication on record that the above-quoted finding recorded by petitioner No,1 i,e, the Controller of Examinations was approved by the Vice-Chancellor. In our view, it will be just and proper to convert the above petition into an appeal and to dispose of the same with the direction to the Vice-Chancellor to consider the above finding recorded by the Controller of Examinations after hearing the respondent and examining the record of the University including the factum that the respondent had obtained first class marks in other subjects as contended by the learned counsel of the respondent. We, therefore, convert the above petition into an appeal and set aside the impugned judgment, and remand the case to the Vice-Chancellor in the above terms with a direction that he shall dispose of the above matter within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order of this Court.