AGL 40.00 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
AIRLINK 127.04 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
BOP 6.67 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
CNERGY 4.51 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
DCL 8.55 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
DFML 41.44 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
DGKC 86.85 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FCCL 32.28 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FFBL 64.80 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FFL 10.25 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
HUBC 109.57 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
HUMNL 14.68 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
KEL 5.05 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
KOSM 7.46 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
MLCF 41.38 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
NBP 60.41 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
OGDC 190.10 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
PAEL 27.83 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
PIBTL 7.83 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
PPL 150.06 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
PRL 26.88 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
PTC 16.07 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
SEARL 86.00 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TELE 7.71 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TOMCL 35.41 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TPLP 8.12 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TREET 16.41 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TRG 53.29 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
UNITY 26.16 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
WTL 1.26 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
BR100 10,010 Increased By 126.5 (1.28%)
BR30 31,023 Increased By 422.5 (1.38%)
KSE100 94,192 Increased By 836.5 (0.9%)
KSE30 29,201 Increased By 270.2 (0.93%)

Provincial Ombudsman Abdur Rashid Khan has ordered Punjab University to issue a pass result card to an MA candidate named Asma Noreen following her alleged ineligibility.
Asma argued in her complaint that after she passed her MA English part-I in 2000, she appeared for the 2004 part II annual examination but her result card showed she had failed in papers II and IV though she was eligible to reappear in the 2007 annual exams. She sat for the 2006 exams but her result was declared as RL and instead of issuing the result card of annual 2006 the complainant was told she was ineligible for the 2006 exams.
The Ombudsman said that although as per rules a candidate appearing in MA part II examination was entitled to four chances in all yet the complainant while appearing in annual 2004 did not conceal anything and clearly said she had passed the MA part-I exams in 2000 but the university failed to establish her eligibility and she was shown eligible to reappear. The complainant remained under the bona fide impression that she was eligible to clear her compartment up to annual examination 2007.
The Ombudsman said the agency should accept its responsibility as informing the complainant at this stage that her chance for appearing in the failed papers was up to annual 2004 whereas she had already appeared in annual examination 2006 to clear the compartment was unjust, unfair and oppressive which tantamounts to mal-administration.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2008

Comments

Comments are closed.