' SH. JAVAID SARFRAZ, J.---This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1-6- 2000 passed by learned District Judge Multan, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner/ defendant, which was filed against the judgment and decree dated 29-2-2000 of Senior Civil Judge, Multan, who had decreed the suit of the respondent No . 1/plaintiff.
2. The relevant facts as according to the plaint are that respondent No.1/plaintiff appeared in Intermediate Supplementary Examination, 1989 conducted by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan under Roll No.16286 and passed in all the subjects except Economics and was thus placed in compartment in the said subject. Then the respondent No.1 reappeared under Roll No.6359 and was declared successful by obtaining 576/1100 marks and Certificate No.Int.
(H) 011808 dated 2-1-1990 was issued. On the basis of above-said certificate the respondent No.1 got admission in B.A. Degree classes of Government Degree College, Bosan Road, Multan and after passing first year was promoted to final year. On 14-3-1991 he received a show-cause notice issued by the Assistant Controller, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan, in which it was alleged that during scrutiny two different handwritings were found in English paper and that he did not appear in the second paper of English himself and some other boy appeared on his behalf. The respondent No.1/plaintiff appeared before the Discipline Committee of the Board and denied all the allegations levelled against him. However, the said Committee cancelled the certificate vide order dated 1-7-1991 against which the respondent No.1 filed an appeal against the order of the said Committee before the Appellate Committee on 8-9-1991, which vide order dated 24-9-1991 rejected the appeal. On the receipt of above-said decision, the respondent No.-1 filed a suit and sought the following declaration:-- "That Certificate No.Int(H)011808 dated 2-1-1990 issued to the plaintiff under Roll No.6359 in respect of his success in Intermediate Supplementary Examination 1989 (Humanities Group) issued under the signatures of defendant No.2 on behalf of defendant No.1 is correct, genuine and valid for all intents and purposes, and that the plaintiff has duly qualified and passed the Intermediate Examination (Humanities Group) held by the defendant No.1 in the year 1989; and that the decision of Disciplinary Committee of the defendant-Board dated 1-7-1991, conveyed to the plaintiff by defendant No.4 on 10-8-1991, whereby the result of the plaintiff under Roll No. 16286 in respect of Intermediate (Annual) Examination 1989 and the result of Intermediate (Supplementary)
Examination under Roll No.6359 and the Certificate bearing No.Int.(H)011808 issued in favour of plaintiff have been quashed, and the order dated 24-9-1991 passed by Appellate Committee of the said Board, conveyed to the plaintiff on 6-10-1991 whereby the appeal dated 8-9-1991 filed by the plaintiff was rejected, are illegal, ultra vires, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, result of mala fides, in- effective and inoperative qua the rights of the plaintiff. Further a decree for permanent injunction as a consequential relief may also kindly be passed restraining the defendants from acting upon the above-said orders and from interfering into the further studies and examinations of the plaintiff in any manner, whatsoever, a decree for mandatory injunction may also kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants directing the defendants to withdraw and recall the impugned orders dated 1-7-1991 and 24-9-1991 mentioned above. Costs of the suit be also awarded".
' This suit was hotly contested and the petitioners herein filed their written statement. Out of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:--
(1) Whether civil Court lacks jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD
(2) Whether suit is bad due to misjoinder of parties? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file this suit? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to the discretionary relief as alleged in preliminary objection No.4 of the written statement? OPD
(5) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is based on mala fide intention? OPD
(6) Whether the defendants are entitled to recover special posts? OPD
(7) Whether the impugned orders of disciplinary committee and appellate committee dated 1-7- 1991 and 24-9-1991 are against facts, law, illegal, ultra vires, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, result of mala fide, ineffective and in-operative qua the rights of the plaintiff for the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP
(8) Relief.
3. The respondent No.1/plaintiff appeared as his own witness and during cross-examination the respondents got certain documents exhibited as Exh.D.1 to Exh.D.10. Subsequently the petitioners/ defendants were proceeded against ex parte on 17-2-2000 and as such did not produce any evidence in support of their contentions. Issues Nos.1 to 6 were decided against the petitioner/defendant and Issue No.7 was decided in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff. The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 29-2-2000 decreed the suit of the respondent No.1 against the petitioner ex parte against which petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Multan, which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 1-6-2000. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to section 29 of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976, no act or order made by the Board shall be called into question before any Court; that the handwriting of the respondent/candidate on the answer sheet did not match and that there is a misreading and non-reading of evidence.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no evidence on record to prove that the handwriting was different and how impersonation has taken place? Further submits that there is no jurisdictional defect and the evidence of the present petitioner was closed and no witness has appeared in support of their case. That a concurrent finding of fact and law have been recorded by Court of competent jurisdiction.
6. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
7. The respondent No.1 appeared in Intermediate and Secondary Education Examination in 1989 and passed in all the papers except Economics and was placed in compartment, which he cleared in 1990 and certificate No.Int.(H)011808 dated 2-1-1990 was issued by which he was declared successful, on the basis of which he obtained admission in B.A. It was on 14-3-1991 that the petitioner issued a show-cause notice intimating him that his handwriting in English paper did not match and some one else took that paper. This action had been taken under Rule 24 framed under Punjab Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education. The Rule is reproduced as under for ready reference:-- "Rule 24. The Discipline Committee shall have the power to cancel or quash the result of a candidate before or after it has been declared. In such a case, the Discipline Committee shall also have the power to cancel the certificate already issued:--if
(i) he/she has been disqualified for using unfair means in the examination; or
(ii) a mistake is found in his/her result; or
(iii) if it is found that he/she was not eligible to appear in the examination; or
(iv) he/she has made a false representation in the admission form or any other document connected with the examination; or
(v) he/she refused to obey any instruction issued by the office in connection with the examination; or (V i) for any other reason that may be determined by the office/ Committee; ' Provided that the Chairman shall have the power to cancel or quash the result of a candidate before or after it has been declared and cancel the certificate already issued in the cases falling under sub-rules (ii) and (iii) above after he/she has been given an opportunity to defend himself/ herself."
8. The purported action has been taken under rule 24(vi), which authorized the Committee to cancel the certificate. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that this rule gives vast powers to the Board to quash the result and cancel the certificate before or after the result, any time, as no time limit has been provided within which the purported action could be taken, does not seem to be correct.
9. Such powers are not unfettered. The Committee has to act only if they have any concrete/solid evidence in their possession before taking any action under rule 24 (ibid). In the case in hand the allegation against the respondent is that the handwriting of the English Paper did not match with that of the respondent and that another person appeared on his behalf, which has been categorically denied. However, strangely the answer sheet of the respondent was not sent to the handwriting expert to determine whether the handwriting of the respondent in English Paper matched with the other papers or not?
10. The petitioner should hav-e obtained an opinion of handwriting expert before invoking any action under this Rule. The English Paper was held in between other papers and the invigilator would have immediately known that a different candidate was appearing in this paper. There is no allegation that the invigilators or the staff were involved in this alleged cheating and were league with the respondent herein. There was hardly any material before the petitioners to have initiated this action.
11. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been specifically barred by section 29 of the Punjab Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976, therefore, the suit should have been dismissed on this ground, does not have any force, as despite this bar, the Civil Courts shall always have the jurisdiction to see whether the acts so done are within the four corners of law. Respectfully reliance is placed upon Harnid Hussain v. Government of West Pakistan and others 1974 SCM R 356 where it has been held by the Honourable apex Court that:-- "It is a well-established principle that even where the jurisdiction of civil Courts is barred and conferred upon special Tribunals, Civil Courts being Court of ultimate jurisdiction will have the jurisdiction to examine the acts of such forums to see whether their acts are in accordance with law or are illegal or even mala fide. "
' In Muhammad Jamil Asghar v. The Improvement Trust, Rawalpindi PLD 1965 SC 698, it was held that:-- "2.... However, with respect to mala fides the jurisdiction of the civil Court can never be taken away for a mala fide act is in its very nature an illegal and void act and the civil Court can always pronounce an act to be mala fide and therefore, void."
Accordingly, it is held that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit so as to examine whether the petitioner's action was in accordance with law.
' C.P.C. The Superior Courts of Pakistan have time and again held that the concurrent findings of fact, which are based on evidence, available on record, cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction. Respectfully reliance is placed on Abdul Rahim and another v. Mst. Janat Bibi and others 2000 SCM R 346; Anwar Zaman and 5 others v. Bahadar Sher and others 2000 SCM R 431 and Muhammad Rashid Ahmad v. Muhammad Siddique PLD 2002 SC 293.
15. Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed and the judgments and decrees, passed by the Courts below, are maintained. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
12. No case of misreading and non-reading of evidence has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner nor any legal infirmity has been noticed. Both the Courts below have rendered reasoned judgments and reat,hed to the proper conclusion. No illegality or irregularity have been committed by them. Therefore, I am not inclined to upset these concurrent findings in revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
13. The findings on question of fact and law, so recorded by the Court of competent jurisdiction, is not interfered by this Court in revisional jurisdiction unless of course such findings suffer from material irregularity, illegality and jurisdictional defect. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Rafiq v.
Aamir Shahzad and others 1999 YLR 610.
Concurrent finding has been passed against the petitioner in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and such findings cannot be interfered in the revisional jurisdiction exercised under section 115, C.P.C.
The Superior Courts of Pakistan have time and again held that the concurrent findings of fact, which are based on evidence, available on record, cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction.
Respectfully reliance is placed on Abdul Rahim and another v. Mst. Janat Bibi and others 2000 SCM R 346; Anwar Zaman and 5 others v. Bahadar Sher and others 2000 SCM R 431 and Muhammad Rashid Ahmad v. Muhammad Siddique PLD 2002 SC 293.
15, Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed and the judgments and decrees, passed by the Courts below, are 1 maintained. However, there shall be no order as to costs.