' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.- Relevant facts giving rise to the filing of the captioned civil revision are that respondent instituted a suit for declaration with consequential relief stating therein that she was born on 17-12-1975, but at the relevant time of the filing of her admission form by her in her matriculation examination, her date of birth was entered as 15-3-1974 instead of 27-12-1975.
Respondent also filed an application seeking rectification of the said error before the Board and a Committee was constituted for purposes of verification of respondent's date of birth, and on examination of the relevant record, the committee finally declined to carry out sought for correction vide order dated 27-4-1995. In fact this order was assailed by respondent by way of civil suit. And in response to notice, defendant Board put in appearance and filed its written statement.
Trial Court framed as many as 3 issues, and on examination of record and evidence adduced by the parties ultimately decreed the suit in favour of the respondent, and the petitioner being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 1-6-1999, filed an appeal, and the learned Judge of the first appellate court dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 1-9-2000, subject matter of this civil revision.
2. Record reveals that instant civil revision was admitted for regular hearing on 22-3-2001, and notwithstanding issuance of notice by this court, none appeared on behalf of respondent student, and consequent upon petitioner's application, substituted service of respondent No,l was ordered, and despite citation in the press, none appeared on her behalf, with the result that she was proceeded ex parte in terms of Order dated 25-11-2004.
3. Main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that civil Court in terms of sections 29 and 31 of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act 1976 has no jurisdiction with reference to rectification of the date of birth so judgment and decree of the trial Court is wholly without jurisdiction and coram non judice. When confronted as to whether this objection was raised at the time of the filing of the written statement, learned counsel drew this Court's attention to the contents thereof, wherein the petitioner Board specifically took the preliminary objection with reference to ouster of jurisdiction. And to substantiate his contentions, learned counsel relies on 1999 CLC 1166, 2001 YLR 66, 2002 M LD 1966, 2005 YLR 2114 and 1999 CLC 984. This Court in the case reported as 2005 YLR 2114 laid down that under sections 29 and 31 of the Act ibid, civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the question about the rectification of the date of birth.
While deciding the question of the jurisdiction of the civil court under the aforesaid provision of law, it has been observed that plea of want of jurisdiction can be raised even at the revisional stage and bar of jurisdiction of civil court was a legal issue and the jurisdiction cannot confer on a Court by not pressing the same, issue of jurisdiction could be agitated at any stage and level of the proceedings. The question of the jurisdiction of the civil court against the act done or order made or the proceedings taken by the Board are to be decided in the light of sections 29 and 31 of the Act ibid, which are reproduced as under:-
29. No act done, order made or proceedings taken by a Board in pursuance of the provision of this Act shall be called in question in any Court.
31. No suit for damages or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against Government, the Controlling Authority, a Board, a Committee, a Member of a Committee or an officer or employee of a Board in respect of anything done or purported to have been done in good faith in pursuance of the provisions of this Act and the Regulations and Rules made thereunder. "
4. A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions of law would reveal * that proceedings or act done by the Board can only be challenged by way of a civil suit if the act done by the Board is purported to have been done with mala fide intention, whereas, in the instant case, ,the respondent did not even cite a single instance showing the mala fide on the part of the petitioner. The act of mala fide can be substantiated by citing different instances if committed by Government functionaries. In the present case, respondent was given ample opportunity by the committee constituted for the said purpose, but the respondent could not prove her case, so the committee justifiably rejected the application filed by respondent.
5. Both the Courts below should have firstly adverted to and decided the question of jurisdiction in the light of the aforesaid provision of law as declared by the Superior Courts of this Country.
Apparently, learned Judges of the Courts below without assuming jurisdiction decided the question with regard to the date of birth of the respondent, and thus, assumption of jurisdiction in the matter was erroneous rendering the judgments of both the Courts below impugned herein as wholly without jurisdiction and coram non judice. Hence, there is hardly any need to dilate upon rest of the issues in this case.
6. For what has been discussed above, this is a fit case for interference and invalidation of the judgments and decrees impugned with the result that by accepting this petition I set aside the concurrent finding of both the Courts below finding the same to have been passed without jurisdiction and suffering from material irregularity and illegality apart from jurisdictional defect. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.