' Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner appeared in the Primary Teacher Course Examination for the Session 1991-92 under Roll No, 336 and got compartment in the subject of Science. He made an application for re-checking of the answer-sheet of the said subject and deposited the requisite fee of Rs,50 in the Bank. The Examination for the Session 1991-92 was conducted by .The Director of Education. In the year 1993, this function was entrusted to the Board of Intermediate and secondary Education, Lahore. The petitioner was informed by the Board that tile re-checking could not be done as the record had been remitted to the office of the Board. The petitioner again deposited a sum of Rs,700 in the Bank for appearing in the subject of Science in the -ear 1993. Roll Number Slip bearing No, 1934 was allegedly issued after the examination was over, therefore, he could not appear in the said paper. Again the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs, 375 on 15-11-1995 for appearing in the examination but as per the petitioner's contention Roll Number Slip was not issued to him.
2. The petitioner's learned counsel contends that the petitioner had a good academic career and had passed his Matriculation Examination in First Division securing 520 marks and got seventh position in Tehsil Forezewala, that he had done very well in the examination held in October, 1992 and hoped to get good marks but his paper of Science was lost/wasted, therefore, he deserves to be given average of the marks obtained by him in the other papers. The learned counsel claims that the petitioner had submitted an application for re-checking of his answer-sheet in the subject of Science and deposited the requisite fee for the said purpose. This fact is admitted in para. 2 of the comments submitted by the Director of Secondary Education on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is stated that the petitioner had deposited the fee for re-checking of the paper but before the needful could be done, all the relevant record was handed over to the Chairman Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education/respondent No,3. The Board does not admit it to be correct.
The learned Legal Advisor for the Board submits that the Board had merely received some registers containing the entries regarding marks obtained by the candidates but the answer sheets were not received by the Board. He further submits that the petitioner could have availed of three chances to clear the paper; that he availed of the first chance in the year, 1993 Annual, the second in 1993 Supplementary and then missed two chances and lastly applied to appear in the examination in the year 1995 but his request was declined as by that time he had exhausted all his chances. He further submits that the amended rule 9 of Chapter V of the Calendar of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Gujranwala cannot be invoked by the petitioner as his examination was conducted by the Directorate of Education, which had its own rules. He has placed on record a photocopy of the Rules. Rule 6 .Provides that if a candidate has failed only in one paper, then he can be granted maximum 5 marks (to clear the paper) but these will not be included in his total marks.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and perusing the material on the record I find that the petitioner was a good student and had secured fairly good marks in all the subjects.
The marks obtained by him in other papers (except Science) are as under:-- {{TABLE}} 1 Sq.' r c..:,/.>1>>1-1,AIL-: y 1 r c-4' 5'L?r,-.-_' ,,,---.4. r 4 I (r1110-4-i Ai/b, CI 4 .. / de 4* .- I Al2)') cr.' I:- Lr'..,,-ef-i /12), r? (3).--. (,-- 4 I dIsei ,47L -i,:i 9) , a's loo 1 ls I A 6 1 i,h-L- I :4?)) "0? c ts j Le-r(re, c...As 41 ,..:(,,,,....27 0..-1-.,:,/0> is% i {{TABLE}} So far as the disputed Science Paper is concerned, the petitioner is neither shown to be absent nor the marks actually awarded to him have been mentioned in the Result Card or the relevant Result Register of the Director of Education (Schools). The petitioner legitimately felt dissatisfied with the result and made an application for rechecking his answer book in the subject of Science and deposited the requisite fee for the said purpose. In this connection, the averments made by the petitioner in para.2 of the petition were accepted by respondent No,1 in his comments in these words:--- "Admitted to the extent of the deposit of the fees, but during that all the records was handed over to respondent No,3 being examination body as per policy of the Government."
' In his comments respondent No,3, i,e, the Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore denied Para.2 of the writ petition for want of knowledge. Strangely enough respondent No,1 on the one hand averred that before re-checking of the papers, the record was handed over to respondent No,3 and on the other, has also annexed a photocopy of Memo. No, 336/X-3, dated 23-1-1993 sent to the petitioner through a Senior Headmaster, Government High School, Sheikhupura. It is stated therein.
"Your scripts of Science for the PTC Examination 1992 has been checked and no mistake has been found therein." .
' This Memo. Not only falsifies the averments made in para.2 of the comments submitted by respondent No,1 but also establishes beyond any doubt that the petitioner had definitely. Taken his examination in the paper of Science. In this view of the matter, it was the bounden duty of the concerned officials in the office of the Directorate of Education to enter the marks obtained by the petitioner in his paper of Science. However, as mentioned above, the relevant column in the result register is blank. The prescribed Rules of the PTC Examination announced by the Directorate of Education contain rule 6, which has been reproduced above. Under this rule, a candidate who fails only in one subject can be awarded 5 marks to clear the paper. Now in the present case, one is left thinking whether the petitioner had really cleared his Science paper or at least had secured sufficient marks so as to clear the paper by adding 5 grace marks permissible under the Rules. The doubt in this behalf must be resolved in favour of the candidate to protect his rights/interest. There was no rule at the relevant time for awarding average marks to a candidate whose paper had been lost after being- marked. Therefore, the petitioner can legitimately fall back upon rule 6 quoted above to claim 5 grace marks. The minimum pass marks in the paper are 33. Keeping in view the lapse on the part of the Director of Education in entering the marks actually obtained by the petitioner in the result register in paper of Science, the 'contradictory stand taken by respondent No,1 in his comments highlighted above, and the fact that the petitioner was a fairly .
Good student and had obtained good marks in 'all the papers, I hold that he must be given at least 33 marks to protect him from being ruined for. No fault on his part.
4. For the foregoing discussion, this potion is accepted and respondent No,.l. Is directed to award 33 marks to the petitioner in his paper of Science and issue fresh Result Card to him within a month of the receipt of this order.