Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that he appeared in the M.A. Economics Annual Examination, 1991 held in December, 1994 against Roll No,21403 and as per result communicated to him he was shown as having failed in Paper-I obtaining only five marks out of 100 marks. According to the result card the petitioner had not only passed all other subjects but had also obtained considerably good marks. He made representations before the respondent for re-checking of the said paper after depositing requisite fee on 31-3-1996. The paper was re-checked and a fresh result card was issued showing that the petitioner had obtained 22 marks. The petitioner repeated representations and consequently the Deputy. Secrecy Officer showed to the petitioner his answer book on 2-6-1996. The petitioner drew the attention of the Deputy Secrecy Officer to the fact that the title page of the petitioner's answer book had been attached with the answer book of somebody else. It was also pointed out that the answer book of the petitioner was written in Urdu as was the title page whereas the answer book so replaced was written in English. Further, inquiry was made and the pages of the answer book were traced out but still five papers attached as extra sheets were missing which fact was also mentioned in the attendance sheet. The petitioner further represented for action against the delinquents but with no avail.
2. It is also submitted that with the exception of Paper-I the petitioner had obtained 277 marks in the remaining six papers. The average number of marks obtained by the petitioner is 46.1% In his report dated 15-10-1996 submitted in the Court by the respondent on 17-10-1996 the respondent has admitted the factual position but has taken the plea that average marks cannot be granted to the petitioner and that the respondent cannot be held responsible as to how the answer book of the petitioner was intermingled with the answer book of Roll No,11051. This answer is not only evasive but also against the regulations of the University dealing with the conduct of Examinations. The respondent is responsible to take all care of the answer books handed over by the candidates to the Superintendent of Examination. The change of various hands after such handing over is to be taken care by the respondent and not the candidate. Replacement of answer book and destruction of the extra-sheets were all in the respondent's office where petitioner can have no control. The relevant provisions regarding award of average marks in cases like the petitioner are contained in the first proviso the Regulation 6 of Chapter VII of the Calendar of the University of the Punjab for the year 1990 (Volume I) which reads as under:-- "6. If a candidate's paper is lost after having been received by the Superintendent of the Examination Centre or by one of his assistants, and if he passes in all other subjects of the examinations, 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 Examiners 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 reappear 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-book after declaration of their results, if their answer-book/s are lost at the time of re-checking. They will, however, have the option to re-appear in the paper/s in the next examinations, if otherwise eligible. The candidate will also be allowed to claim refund of fee for re- checking."
The rules and regulations of the University are to be given effect strictly and while doing so it is an established principle that rules capable to bring reasonable interpretation favourable to the candidate must be preferred. This is a case in which the petitioner has been subjected to gross abuse of process of law and authority. The writ merits to be allowed and is hereby allowed. It is declared that the result card issued to the petitioner in an arbitrary manner is without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. It is also ordered that the respondent shall redress the grievance of the petitioner by giving average marks in paper-I as well and declare him as having passed in M.A. Economics Annual Examination held in 1994 having obtained 46 marks out of 100 marks in Paper-I. The respondent is also directed to hold a proper inquiry and proceed against the person found responsible for the fabrication made in the case of the petitioner by the office of the respondent and whatever action is taken by the respondent within his discretion a copy of that shall be sent to this Court through Registrar.