Pakistan Case Law← Search
2001 C.L.R. 1020

Miss ANEELA YAQOOB vs THE UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB, LAHORE through its

Citation2001 C.L.R. 1020
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition Nos. 4462 and 4463 of 2001
Date2001-04-03
Judge(s)Karamat Nazir Bhandari
ResultN/A

ORDER

KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.-- This order will dispose of will Petitions No. 4462/2001 and 4463/2001.

2. The petitioners in these petitions are real sisters, appeared in B.A. Examination and repeatedly failed in the Subject of English Paper-B. Last time they appeared in BA/BSC 2nd Annual Examination-2000, the result of which was declared in the Gazette dated 26.1.2001. Petitioners again failed in English. According to the petitioners, they did not receive the result card in the ordinary course of mail and the same were collected by their father from the office of the University on 1.3.2001. It is asserted that immediately thereafter the petitioners applied for rechecking/showing of the answer sheets, but this was not done. is further asserted that the next examination is scheduled to be held in May-2001 and this being the last chance available to the petitioners, the petitioners requested for acceptance of examination forms, but this again was declined as the time for the same has expired. In the circumstances, these two petitions have been instituted to claim the dual relief, viz, showing of the answer-sheets and rechecking and, alternatively, the direction to the University to accept the examination forms and to permit the petitioners to take the forthcoming examination.

3. The University through its counsel has maintained that the notification declaring the result was issued on 26.1.2001 and petitioners had 15 days to submit their examination forms. It is also stated that the result cards of the petitioners were collected by one Mahboob Wahl, a Clerk in Examination Branch, who delivered it to Mr. Imtiaz Ahmad Chaudhry, the Headmaster of the School, who gave it in writing that the result cards were delivered to the petitioners on 1.2.2001 or thereabout.

4. Dr. M. Mohyuddin Qazi, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has drown parallel with Regulations of the Boards Intermediate and Secondary Education in Punjab to state that the Boards do award grace marks to the students of Secondary School Examination and Intermediate Examination. He submits that petitioner if granted eight marks, can pass the examination. He further submits that under Regulation No. 22 appearing at page 7, the Vice Chancellor has the power in cases of hardship, to accept the forms even beyond time. He explains that the examinations are due to be held in May, 2001 and there is ample time for the Vice Chancellor to relieve the hardship of the petitioners. The case has been 'contested by Mr. Mohsin Abbas, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for Dr. A.

Basit, Advocate, for the University.

5. As there is no Regulation for grant of grace marks, petitioners cannot insist for the same. It is for the University Authorities to examine the question of framing regulation in, this respect . This Court cannot trespass upon the territory reserved for the University.

6. Learned counsel for the University has not been able to satisfy me that the mode adopted for delivery of result cards of the petitioners is normal and legal. Apparently Mahboob Illahi has no authority to collect the result cards and pass it on to the headmaster for onward delivery. Why this unusual channel has been adopted, has not been explained, Keeping this Background in view, the petitioners' claim that their father collected the result cards on 1.3.2001 cannot be ruled out. It is in the 'result card that petitioners have been informed that they can appear in the forthcoming examination which will be a last chance. By that time the period for receipt of examination forms was over. Apparently it is a case of hardship as the entire academic career of the petitioners depends upon clearing the failed subject in the forthcoming examination. However, it is for the Vice Chancellor to pass appropriate orders in terms of Regulation 22:

7. For all that has been stated above; these two petitions are disposed of. If so advised, the petitioners may make application under Regulation 22. It is directed that the said application shall be entertained and disposed of preferably within ten days, after hearing the petitioners/their authorized representative. No orders as to costs.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search