The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the vires of order of respondent dated 23-7- 2000. .
2. The petitioner's counsel submits that petitioner appeared in Secondary School Examination, 1999 and secured 388, marks out of 850 marks. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared in the Examination held by respondents Secondary School Examination, 2000. The petitioner, was declared failed in Chemistry Practical. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed application for rechecking the same but respondents dismissed the application of petitioner vide impugned intimation letter dated 23-7-2000; learned counsel of the petitioner submits that action of respondents is without lawful authority and is based on malice; that petitioner secured 9 marks in the Secondary School Examination, 1999 in the practical paper of Chemistry but the petitioner obtained zero marks in the examination in question which is not possible; that respondents did not re-check the paper of petitioner in accordance with law; that mere comparison of Annexures 'A' and 'B' reveals that action of respondents is without lawful authority. The petitioner's counsel alleged serious allegation against Sub-Examiner. He further submits that action of respondents is in violation of law laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contention he relied upon Salma Afroze's case PLD 1992 SC 263 and 1999 CLC 694 (Khurshid Ahmed's case).
3. The learned Legal Advisor of respondents submits that action of respondents is in accordance with law and is valid.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also seen the paper in Court. The action of respondents is in accordance with law as general allegation of malice is not sustainable in the eyes of law as per law laid down in Saeed Ahmad Khan's case PLD 1974 SC 151 and Aman Ullah Khan's case PLD 1990 SC 1092. Similarly allegation of malice against Sub---Examiner is not sustainable in the eyes of law as petitioner did not implead the Sub-Examiner as respondent as per principle laid down by superior Courts in the following judgments:---- Azhar A.I's case PLD 1971 Lah. 972 and M. Ramiz-ul-Haq's case PLD 1992 SC 221. , The petitioner referred Salina Afroze---s case (supra) but petitioner did not draft the writ petition in terms of said case, therefore, principle laid down in Salina Afroze's case is not attracted. It is also settled proposition of law that Examiner is the best Judge to judge the performance of candidate qua paper A in question as the law laid down in Rana Muhammad Ajmal's case 19841 CLC 378. The judgment of learned Single Judge was upheld by Division Bench of this Court in 1984 CLC 3316 (Rana Muhammad Ajmal's case).
The petitioner's counsel failed to point out that respondents violated their Rules and Regulations, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as held in A.I Mir's case 1984 SCMR 433. As mentioned above, the petitioner failed to allege any specific malice against respondents, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as per principle laid down in Saeed Nawaz's case PLD 1981 Lah. 371. This Court has no jurisdiction to give direction to respondents qua re-evaluation of paper as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salina Afroze's case (supra). It is pertinent to mention here that the action of the respondent is in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments: BISE Lahore v. Saima Azad 1996 SCMR 676 and Tahir Saeed Qureshi v. BISE, Sargodha 1996 SCMR 1872.