This is an appeal against the order dated 23rd July, 1981 of the Additional District Judge, Lahore who set aside the order of the trial Court whereby the plaint of the respondent No.l was rejected.
2. Briefly, the facts -of this case are that the respondent No.l filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, disqualifying him from Inter-Examination (Pre--Engineering Group) Spring, 1979 and debarring him from appearing in the next three examinations was inoperative being void, illegal, mala fide and without jurisdiction, with consequential relief that the appellant and respondent No.2 be restrained permanently, from compelling the plaintiff to surrender the certificate, for the result of the said examination, on the basis of which he had been admitted to the University of Engineering and Technology Lahore. The trial Court as said above, rejected the plaint whereas the same has now been restored by. The lower appellate Court without granting any interim injunction.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel that as Sections 29 and 31 of the Act XIII of 1976 barred such suits and as the allegations about mala fides were vague, the trial Court rightly rejected the plaint.. It is further stated that as precisely similar matter, of the same examination centre, had been considered by this Court, in the case reported as Zafarullah v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore (PLD 1981 Lahore 244) and rejected and even the Supreme Court refused to grant any relief, the order of the trial Court could not have been interfered with.
4. It may be noted that Section 29 of Act XIII of 1976 provides that no act done, order made or proceedings taken by a Board in presence of the provisions of Act shall be called in question in any Court. Section 31 lays down that no suit for damages or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against the Government, the Controlling authority, a Board, a Committee, a member of a Committee or an officer or employee of the 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, Rather it is provided in Section 28 that no act or proceedings of a Board or any Committee shall be invalid merely by reason of the existence of a vacancy on the Board or the Committee as the case may be or by reason of any irregularity in the appointment of any member of the Board or the Committee.
5. All, the points raised by the learned counsel are fully covered by the above provisions. So the plaint could be rejected unless it is shown that the matter lay within any exception determined by the su erior Courts. The order of the lower appellate Court shows that inference was made on the ground that the suit had been filed on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, mala fides and violation of the principles of natural justice. The averments in the plaint do not show any particulars of mala fides against the Disciplinary or the Appellate Committees. About the violation of natural justice, reliance was placed on para. 5 (a) of the plaint by the learned counsel but as admittedly no witness was examined by the appellant, there was no question of cross-examination. The other question about lack of jurisdiction concerned the constitution of the Special Disciplinary Committee. As said above, it is precisely covered by section 28, if at all there was any fault in it. In any case, the matter had been considered and decided by this Court in Zaffarullah v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore (PLD 1981 Lahore 244) (paras. 12 and 16) and consequently, the lower appellate Court was bound by that and could not hold differently. It is said that the order of the High Court was upheld even by the Supreme Court.
In view of the above, the interference by the lower appellate Court was uncalled for. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside, with the result that the order of the trial Court shall operate. The parties are left to bear their own costs.