Sahibzadi GHAZALA ISMAT HASSAN KHAN SABRI vs VICECHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE and others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition seeking a direction to the University of the Punjab to remark her English examination papers. The High Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the examination papers had already been destroyed under the relevant rules, and that a re-checking of the marks had already been conducted in the petitioner's presence without objection. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the university had merely recounted the marks on the title page rather than conducting a proper re-checking. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's plea required an investigation into factual matters, which could not be undertaken in these proceedings. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petition was barred by 144 days, and the explanation for the delay was vague and unsupported by documentary evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined leave to appeal and dismissed the petition on both merits and limitation.
- Can the Supreme Court direct an investigation into disputed factual matters regarding the re-checking of examination papers in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Whether a petition for leave to appeal can be entertained when it is barred by limitation and the application for condonation of delay lacks specific dates and supporting documentary evidence?
- Can a court order the re-marking of examination papers if those papers have already been lawfully destroyed by the educational institution under its rules?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 29-4-1998, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in W.P.No,4495 of 1996.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner filed a Constitutional petition praying therein that respondent No,1 be directed to get her English Papers 'A' and 'B' of B.A. Examination held in November, 1995, under Roll No,19040, remarked. The learned Judge in Chambers after calling for the record and parawise comments, dismissed the writ petition, inter ilia, with the following observations:-- "(2) Report and parawise comments were sent for. The same have been received and perused, according to which, petitioner's papers were checked wherein it transpired that she had got 24 out of 100 marks in Paper-A and 38 out of 100 marks in Paper-B in English Subject. Pass marks were 6 of
200. Therefore, to enable her to pass in English she was given 4 grace marks. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for re-marking of the papers. Learned counsel for the respondents was asked to get instructions. According to him the papers have since been destroyed under the rules. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on file copy of the rules as well as the order on the basis of which papers pertaining to year 1995 have since been destroyed. In these circumstances, re-marking cannot be ordered. However, re-checking was done in the presence of the petitioner where she did not raise any objection. No further order is required to be passed in this writ petition, which is accordingly disposed of."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents have not re-checked the answer books and only recounted the marks given on the title page of the answer book.
4. We are afraid, the plea raised by the petitioner necessitates an investigation into the facts which cannot be directed in these proceedings. Furthermore, the petition is barred by 144 days. The delay is sought to be condoned on the ground that due to serious injuries caused to the petitioner in an accident she remained in hospital for medical treatment. The explanation tendered by the petitioner in not approaching this Court within time suffers from vagueness. It is not stated in the application for condonation of delay as to when she sustained the alleged injuries and for how much time she remained in the hospital. Furthermore, no documentary evidence has been placed on record in support of the grounds urged for condonation of the delay.
' Resultantly. The petition is dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of limitation, and leave declined.