1. BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.--- The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the respondent appeared in the Intermediate Part-I Examination, 1997 under Roll No. 20343 held by the appellants and secured 429 marks out of 550 marks. The appellants issued result card to the respondent. The respondent after the declaration of result preferred an application before the appellants for rechecking of her Physics Paper-A. The appellants constituted a committee for the said purpose which found that question No. 7(b) is unmarked and question No. 1 objective shall also be rechecked by Head Examiner. The appellant send the script of the respondent under the rules for necessary correction to the concerned examiner who had evaluated the script of the respondent. The answer book of the respondent was rechecked by the sub-examiner who found no mistake. However, he recommended for the registration of unfair means case against the respondent. The recommendations of the sub-examiner was also endorsed by the Head Examiner.
2. The appellants intimated the respondents after receiving said report from the sub-examiner and head-examiner that no mistake had been found in the answer book. The respondent being aggrieved filed Constitutional Petition No. 4338/1998 seeking direction in the nature of mandamus that the appellant Board and its relevant officials be directed to get the respondent's/petitioner's answer to question No. 1 of Physics Paper-A reevaluated and thereafter the result of the respondent/petitioner be declared in accordance with the re-evaluation done by the appellant.
3. The Constitutional petition was accepted by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 24.10.1998. The appellants being aggrieved filed this Intra-Court Appeal.
4. Muhammad Ashiq, Assistant Controller, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Gujranwala is present and states that he is authorized by the competent authority to appear and give statement before this Court that the appellant/Board shall not register and initiate any proceedings against the respondent for unfair means allegedly committed by the respondent qua the paper in question. The appellant/Board will also hand over the original result card to the respondent subject to the condition that respondent shall not demand the result card in terms of the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 4338/1998, dated 24.10.1998.
5. Learned counsel of the appellant submits that the appeal may be disposed in terms of the statement of the representative of the appellant.
6. Learned counsel of the respondent, under instructions of the original counsel submits that during the pendency of the appeal the respondent has passed the final M.B., B.S. Examination from Punjab University.
7. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record ourselves.
8. The respondent is well within her right to secure an original result card from the appellant/Board in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 'following judgments:- Samar Pervez's case (PLD 1971 SC 838). Faiza Malik's case (PLD 1992 SC 324). . It is also settled principle of law that this Court has ample jurisdiction to look into the subsequent events at the time of deciding the cases as the law laid down by the Division Bench of Karachi High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments:- Nasir Jamal's case (1990 CLC 1069). Amina Begum's case (PLD 1978 SC 220).
9. It is admitted fact that the respondent has passed the final Examination of M.B., B.S., therefore, she is entitled to get the certificate from the Punjab University and the question of obtaining admission in Medical College has no relevancy in view of the lap laid down in the following judgments:- Abdul Janan's case (PLD 1996 SC ,709).
10. Khawaja Muhammad Yousaf's case (1999 SCM R 1516).
11. Nawab A.I's case (NLR 2003 Civil 248).
12. Salma Afroz's case (PLD 1992 SC 263). Saima Zaid's case (1996 SCM R 676).
13. Tahir Saeed Qureshi's case (1996 SCM R 1872).
14. Therefore, the law laid down by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment is not approved which runs counter to the principles already laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments. .