SHAHID JAMIL KHAN, J.--- C. M. No. 1 13612015 . This application is for placing additional documents on record.
2. Allowed subject to all just and legal exceptions. C.M. disposed of.
Main Case.
3. Petitioner has challenged order dated 02.03.2015 passed by respondent No. 5.
4. A complaint was lodged by Mehboob Bashir father of Zainab Mehboob (respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively) before the Chief Minister Complaint Cell, against expulsion of respondent No 2 from the school run by the petitioner . This complaint Was assigned to respondent No 5, who after receiving comments from both sides passed the order in question. The order is reproduced hereunder for convenience:--- "On the complaint lodged by Mr. Mehboob Bashir father of Zainab Mehboob, student of your school in class 7th, received from the Chief Secretary Govern ment of the Punjab vide No. SO (Complaints) 06-7951 1/2015, dated 06- 01-2015 and District Coordination Of ficer Hafizabad vide No DCO/CS Complaints/80, dated 12-02-2015.
The undersigned directed you to furnish your comments vide this office No. 542/C.Cell dated 17.02.2015, and your comments received on 24-02-2015. -After reviewing the comments of both parties, we found that the Headmistress and Regional Office Beacon House School System have not provided any evidence they remained failure to prove their allegations against Zainab and her father . However , the documents and evidences provided by Mehboob Bashir to support his claims are valid. Expulsion or banning the entry of Zainab Mehboob in school campus in the running academic year is violation of Articles 16, 18 and 20 of the Punjab Free & Compulsory Education 2014 (Act XXVI of 2014): You are hereby directed to allow Zainab Mehboob, student in class 7th to continue her education in Beacon House School System Hafizabad immediately without any loss of time."
5. The petitioner instead of allowing -respondent No 2 (Zainab Mehboob) has filed this petition against the order .
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 1 (father of the student) has used filthy language against some of the teachers in school, therefore, respondent No. 2 cannot be allow ed to continue her education in the school. He has relied on Section 16(2)(c) of the Punjab Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2014 ("Act of 2014") to submit that a reasoned judgment was given by disciplinary committee that retention of respondent No. 2 in school shall be detrimental to the discipline of the school. He has also undertaken that as per clause (2)(a) of Section 16 of the Act of 2014, the Petitioner shall arrange transfer of respondent No 2 to any other school in prescribed manner . Further submits that petitioner was not provided an opportunity of being heard before, passing the impugned order .
6. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that the allegations made against respondent No. 1 (father of the student) are baseless and could not be proved before any forum. Further submits that respondent No. 1 was only trying to ensure proper and effective education for her daughter (respondent No. 2), which has offended the petitioner .
7. Respondent No. I (father of the studen t), with permission of the Court, was allowed to explain his position. He has grievance about quality of education as he is paying handsome fee to the petiti oner/school. He has undertaken before the Court that he will not create any embarrassment which may prejudice smooth administration of school, in case her daughter is allowed to continue in the school for 7th class.
8. Heard both the parties, record perused.
9. Perusal of paragraph No. 2 of impug ned order shows that impugned order was passed after receiving and considering comments from both the parties. As per order , allegations levelled against respondents No. 1 and 2 could not be .proved by the petitioner . However , claim of respondent No. 1, regarding quality of education was found correct. Therefore, it was directed to allow respondent No. 2 to continue her education for the running academic year .
10. Examination of Section 16 of the Act of 2014 shows that it envisages continuation of a student in a school without interruption. Sub-section (1) envisages completion of studies for a student in an academic year. Sub- section (2) provides some exceptions. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner , that the expulsion was made under Section 16(2)(c) of the Act of 2014, is based on facts. Competent Authority has held that petitioner could not prove the allegations. Such findings of fact by a competent authority cannot be replaced in Constitutional jurisdiction.
The law referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner , as well as, propriety demands that a student should complete the running academic year in the same institution, otherwise her/his future would be prejudiced drastically .
11. It appears that the confrontation is between father of respondent No. 2 (Zainab Mehboob) and the Principal of the school run by petitioner , for which future of respondent No. 2 is being put at stake.
Such behaviour on the part of petitioner cannot be allowed, particularly in presence of findings of fact in the impugned order .
An opportunity was provided to petitioner side to withdraw this petition on undertaking of respondent No. 1 (father of the student) but it was refused straightaway . This attitude has further confirmed that expulsion of respondent No. 2 is a matter of ego for the petitioner .
12. Be that as it may this petition being devoid of merits is dismissed . Petitioner is directed to comply with the impugned order forthwith.