Case Details

Citation(s)
1987 SLG 1635 1987 SLD 1635 1987 SCMR 836
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos.59 and 60 of 1987, decided on 4th February, 1987. (On appeal from the s of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 21-12-1986 in W.Ps. Nos.2389 and 2390 of 1986). Date of hearing, 4th February, 1987.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN AND SAAD SAOOD, JAN, JJ
Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in both petitions). Nemo for
Respondent (in both petitions).

UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB and another--Petitioners

VS

FAROOQ AHMAD and another--Respondents

Law:

Section:

University of the Punjab Regulations relating to B. Pharmacy Examination--- ---Regln. No. 2--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199-­Intepretation of--Respondents failing in University Examination by 5 marks and their representations for allowing 5 grace marks as admissible under University Regulations, failed--High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction directing University authorities to declare respondents as having passed said examination--Order impugned--High Court having correctly interpreted relevant Regulation, impugned order upheld-- Leave to appeal refused JUDGMENT SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--These are two petitions for special leave to appeal by 'the University of the Punjab and the Controller of Examinations from the and order dated 21-12-1986 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a direction was given to the petitioners to declare Farooq Ahmad and Mazhar Iqbal, respondents in the two petitions, as having passed the First Professional B. Pharmacy Supplementary Examination, 1984. 2. Farooq Ahmad and Mazhar Iqbal took the aforementioned examination which was held in January 1986. To begin with their results were held up but ultimately they were declared to have failed in the examination. The examination was taken in five subjects. They had passed in all the subjects except the one relating to Pharma-Bio-­Chemistry. In this subject they both had obtained 95 out of 200 marks. The minimum marks required to pass in this subject were 100. Thus, they both failed by 5 marks. However, in the aggregate for all the subjects they had received more than 50$ marks. They made representations to the petitioners for being allowed the benefit of 5 grace marks as provided in Regulation No.2 of the Regulations relating to the examination in question but their representations were rejected. They then invoked the constitutional…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492