Through this petition, the Petitioner Beaco n House School System ("BHSS ") has impugned order dated 23.11.2020 passed by Respondent No. 3, District Education Authority , Mandi Bahauddin.
2. The case of the Petitioner is that Respondent No. 2 has passed the impugned order for which he has no authority and which is beyond the mandate of the Punjab Private Educational Institutions (Promote and Regulation)
Ordinance, 1984 ("Ordinance "). An issue arose with respect to Respondent No. 4, a student of Class 9 in the BHSS, Sufi City, Mandi Bahauddin. Several complaints were received against Respondent No. 4 with respect to his bad behaviour and violation of school rules. As per the complaints, the student was behaving aggressively with the teachers and other students, using abusive language and violating all school rules. Ultimately , the School Discipline Committee ("SDC ") took action against Respondent No. 4 by giving him a warning and when they saw no change in his behaviour , he was expelled from the school through termination letter dated 27.10.2020. The father of Respondent No. 4 filed a complaint before Respondent No. 3 stating therein that on the day when his son was expelled from school by the Principal, he misplaced and then recovered from Sargodha. Furthermore, due to personal grudge and a complaint filed by the father of Respondent No. 4 with regar d to embezzlement in the school fund committed by the Principal to the head office of the school of the Petitioner , his son was expelled from the school by the Petitioner . Consequently , Respondent No. 3 issued show cause notice to the Petitioner seeking a response. The school responded and informed Respondent No. 3 of the merits of the case and also submitted the relevant record to show the manner in which the proceedings were dealt with by the SDC. A personal hearing was given and ultimately , Respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order wherein he concluded that the expulsion is illegal and Respondent No. 4 should be restored with immediate effect. The school administration was also strictly warned to comply with the requirements of the Ordinance.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that Respondent No. 3 has exceeded his jurisdiction and that the matter of expulsion of Respondent No. 4 from the school does not fall within the mandate of the Ordinance.
Learned counsel argued that even otherw ise with respect to the merits of the case, Respondent No. 3 did consider the record and the proceedings carried out by the SDC against Respondent No. 4 and instead requires the Petitioner to restore the aggrieved student with immediate ef fect.
4. Report and parawise comments have been filed by Respondents No. 1 to 3. Since the basic dispute relates to Respondent No. 3, learned Law Officer argued that in terms of Section 12C of the Ordinance Respondent No. 3 "directed the Petitioner to restore Respon dent No. 4 as a student of its school. Learned Law Officer further argued that an appeal lies before the Commissioner under the Ordinance, which is appropriate remedy available to the Petitioner under the law. Learned Law Officer further argued that based on the complaint by the father of Respondent No. 4 an inquiry was made into the matter and based on the direction of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in terms of notification dated 10.05.2019, Respondent No. 3 acted in accordance with law. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 adopts the arguments advanced by the learned Law Officer and stated that the Petitioner school acted in a harsh manner with the student, hence a complaint was filed by his father before Respondent No. 3, which has exercised his power under the Ordinance.
5. Heard and record perused. The basic issue before the Court is whether Resp ondent No. 3 has the authority under the Ordinance to direct- a private educational institution, which has taken disciplinary action against a student, to restore the admission of the student, that is restored the admission of a student expelled on account of disciplinary action. As per the preamble, the Ordinance was promulgated to promote and regulate the setting up and management of educational institutions in the Punjab. The word, institution means a privately managed college or school as notified by the Government. Hence, the purpose of the Ordinance is to provide promotion and regulation of private educational institution. Section 3 of the Ordinance requires all institutions to be registered and Sections 7 and 7-A of the Ordinance require the private educational institution to comply with the conditions of registration relating to payment of fee and charging of fee at the rate prescribed as per the Ordinance. Section 9 of the Ordinance provides that the registration can be cancelled if there is a contravention under the Ordinance, which essentially is with respect to payment of fee. Section 12C of the Ordinance provides directions and instructions that the registering authority may give from time to time to accomplish the objectives of the Ordinance, which is the section Respondent No. 3 has relied upon. Section 12D of the Ordinance was added by way of amendment in 2020, which allows the registering authority to issue special directives for closure of school for ensuring that students are imparted education through alternative means in special circumstances. It also provides that the registering authority may issue directions for determining the fee to be charged by the schools for a period in which special directives remain in field. Therefore, the basic objective of the Ordinance is to regulate the charging of fees by the private educational institution as there is no other aspect of the private educational institution, which has to be regulated under the Ordinance. The basic contention of the Respondents particularly Respondent No. 3 that it has the power to direct the private educational institution to restore the admission of a student, who has been expelled for disciplinary reasons is misconceived and without basis. There is no provision under the Ordinance which empowers Respondent No. 3 to exercise such an authority over a private educational institution. Section 12C of the Ordinance requires the registering authority to issue directions and instructions to accomplish the objectives of the Ordinance. There is nothing contained in the Ordinance, which authorizes the authority to regulate disciplinary issues with respect to students of private educational institution. The Ordinance is limited in its application and cannot be used as a way to interfere in the management and administration of a private educational institution.
6. In this case, the record shows that several complaints were filed against Respondent No. 4 by the teachers and other students with respect to his bad behaviour and abusive language and the fact that he has not shown any regard for the school rules. As per the record, due process was followed by the Petitioner whereby the parents of Respondent No. 4 were informed of the disciplinary issues through letters dated 03.03.2020 and on 08.10.2020 he was given a warning to curtail his aggressive behavior . Thereafter , expulsion letter was issued on 27.10.2020. It is important to note that these letters describe the behaviours of Respondent No. 4, which are understandably unacceptable for any educational institution. Despite the warning and the suspen sion, Respondent No. 4 did not change his behaviour , hence the SDC decided to expel him which he was given fair warning. The father of Respondent No. 4 immediately filed a complaint on 03.11.2020 before Respondent No. 3, who then sought response from the Petitioner school and called them for a personal hearing. In terms of the impugned order issued by Respondent No. 3, he made an effort to resolve the matter for the benefit of the student, hence he though it befitting to restore the admission of Respondent No. 4. This finding of Respondent No. 3 appears to be totally extraneous to the Ordinance and based on his own understanding on how to deal with the matter . Even the reasons given in his report dated 04.11.2020 evidence the mindset that the private school is responsible for controlling the behaviour of the student because they charge a hefty fee. In this regard, public functionaries are required to act in accordance with law and they derive their authority under the law. Public functionaries cannot impose extraneous conditions while exercising their powers nor can they go beyond the powers provided to them under the law. The Ordinance in this case does not authorize Respondent No. 3 to interfere in disciplinary matters and the contention that this objective falls under Section 12C is totally without basis. It is also noted that the notification dated 10.05.2019 issued by Special Secretary School Education Depa rtment in terms of the direction given by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan is also not relevant because it is related to the payment of fee being charged by the private educational institution and nothing more. In that context, the schools were directed not to take disciplinary action against students and the august Supreme Court of Pakistan also directed that students and their parents are required to pay the fee on time and those, who do not pay the reduced fee should be liable for disciplinary action. This notificat ion has been wrongly interpreted and relied upon as it has no nexus with the issue at hand.
7. Under the circumstances, this petition is accented and the impugned order dated 23.11.2020 passed by Respondent No. 3 is set aside.