' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.---Case being canvassed by the learned counsel is that petitioner institution stands affiliated with the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Gujranwala since 27-2- 2008 and is stated to have submitted admission forms for the students to appear in Annual Examination, 2008 held in June, 2008 and received by the respondent' Board on 27-2-2008 within due date. In terms of letter dated 19-5-2008 respondent No,1 called upon the petitioner to deposit Rs,10,080 as three times toke fine for the original amount of Rs,3,360 which the petitioner was ready to pay but later petitioner was directed to further deposit Rs,500 more per student as a fine in addition to the said amount which comes to Rs,14,080 which the petitioner deposited with the bank concerned on 30-5-2008. Whereafter, the respondent further demanded Rs,500 per day per student amounting to Rs,2,100 per student and for 8 students Rs,1,68,000. Since the examination was going to be held after two days, therefore, the petitioner had no other option but to give certain undertaking before respondent-Board and in the guise of that undertaking respondent- Board is threatening the petitioner to issue the result cards of the students subject to payment of Rs,21,000 per student failing which the result shall be withheld by the Board. It is contended that questioned notification dated 26-6-2008 would not operate retrospectively and the petitioner in any manner is not amenable to it.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent Board appears along with record, which shall form part of the record of this case as Mark A to Mark G. Learned counsel stated that in fact respondent-Board keeping in view the career of the students accepted the admission forms on 27-2-2008 even without the requisite fee. And that according to the earlier Notification No, 24, dated 31-12-2007 of the extra fee of Rs,500 per day per student was only to be accepted before ten days of the commencement of the examination, so in this case this rule was relaxed vide notification dated 26-6-2008, whereby it was resolved in Board's meeting that said extra fee shall be received even before three days of the commencement of the examination. Lastly contended that Principal of the College Syed Naeem Ahmed appeared before the Secretary Board and undertook to pay the charges of Rs .5,40,000 demanded by the respondent Board and it was also undertaken that in the event of non-payment of the said amount, result of 26 students will be withheld by the Board.
3. Arguments heard. Record shows that Board treated quite leniently the petitioner firstly while admitting their admission forms without requisite fee and thereafter the roll number slips issued even before three days of the commencement of the examination and without fee of the students which obviously was collected much earlier before the target date and the college authorities deposited it with the board at the neck of the time. Even if the Board allowed the petitioner's students to sit in the said examination.
4. The College Principal undertook while appearing before the Secretary of the respondent Board in this case has not been denied by the petitioner whereby the college undertook to pay the amount as demanded by the Board and in case of nonpayment, result of the students was to be withheld.
Petitioner instead of resolving the matter and to save the career of the students opted to file this petition simply to wriggle out of the undertaking admittedly given by the college Principal.
5. Record of the whole case sufficiently demonstrates to understand that students and the respondent Board cannot A be held liable for any lapse or fault but in fact it was the petitioner's college which did not discharge its onerous duty and responsibility. So keeping in view the circumstances of the case the amount due against as also undertaken by the petitioner will be paid by the petitioner college or its Principal and not by the students and if the amount as undertaken to be paid is not paid, the same shall be deducted from the Endowment Fund of the petitioner but in any case result/result cards of the students shall not be withheld by the respondent Board. The Board shall also see to it that the amount due against the College shall not at all be recovered from the students, and in case of any complaint is made or came to the knowledge of the respondent Board, it shall be at liberty to take any action against the college authorities in accordance with law.
6. With the above observations, these petitions are dismissed. Copy of the compliance report shall be transmitted to the Deputy Registrar Judicial of this Court.
' Any how the respondent board is not precluded from entering into negotiations with the petitioner regarding the amount in question and any effort if made only to the extent of the amount in question for reduction thereof, would be appreciated and considered sympathetically.