MUHAMMAD JAFFER HUSSAIN Versus CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, D.G. KHAN

IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20-11-1997 passed in Intra-Court Appeal No.218 of 1997, whereby the order dated 31-10-1997, dismissing the Writ Petition No.8327 of 1997, was upheld.

2. Brief facts are that the petitioner appeared in Intermediate I-Annual Examination, 1996 (Pre-Engineering) under Roll No. 6789. The result was declared in October, 1996. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the result applied for re-checking of the answer books in papers of Chemistry, Mathematics, Pakistan Studies and Urdu, after depositing the requisite fee.

3. The case of the petitioner is that no decision was taken on his application. Consequently, he could not avail the examination of 1997.

However, he filed a civil suit before the Court of Ch. Muhammad Siddique, Civil Judge, 1st Class, D.G. Khan, for the re-evaluation of his scripts (Solved Answer-Books), for Intermediate (Annual) Examination, 1996. The suit was later withdrawn.

4. The petitioner thereafter filed Writ Petition No.8327 of 1997, which was dismissed. The Intra-Court Appeal filed by the petitioner also met the same fate. It was observed by the Division Bench of the High Court that evaluation of the papers could not be resorted to in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.

5. Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the petitioner applied for re-checking of the four papers referred above but the Board re-checked only two papers and did not make am- effort to re-check the remaining papers. According to him, neither the learned Single Judge nor the learned members of the Division Bench of the High Court appreciated this aspect of the matter in its true perspective.

6. We have seen the application moved by the petitioner for re-checking of the answer-sheets. The 'same was disposed of by the Board, inter alia, with the following observations:-----

The result was that in two papers the necessary correction in marks was made.

7. After perusal of the entire material available before it the High Court came to the following conclusion:--

"There is no allegation of mala fide against the Sub-Examiner or the Head Examiner whatsoever. Minor discrepancies in evaluation are bound to happen while marking answer books by Examiner and such a discrepancy, hardly furnishes a valid ground to interfere with marking of papers by this court under Article 199 of the Constitution.

It has also been pointed out that petitioner has failed in three subjects and awarding of the two more marks in the said paper will only qualify him to appear in the next examination in two subjects instead of appearing in all the subjects ...."

8. It is well-settled that marking of answer-books is a job to be performed by the experts in the subject concerned and the High Court in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction is not required to evaluate the papers in any other manner. It is not the case of the petitioner that any one of the examiners was inimically disposed towards him. The parental jurisdiction exercised by the respondent-Board, was rightly not interfered with by the High Court. No ground for interference has been made out.

9. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave refused.

N.H.Q/M-226/S Petition dismissed.