' This revision is directed against the Judgment of the learned Civil Judge, dated 24-9-1998 as upheld by learned District Judge, Khushab on 7-6-1999 by which judgments the suit of respondent No,1 was decreed. This respondent has brought a suit for declaration that he was entitled to the issue of certificate from the petitioner indicating that the respondent has not only passed in other subjects but in the subject of Model Drawing also.
2. Respondent No,1 appeared in the Matriculation Examination conducted by the petitioner in the year 1992 but failed in the subject of General Science. His case is that by addition of grace marks he had passed the Matriculation Examination, but this is seriously contested by the petitioner Board. In the year 1995, he submitted forms for clearance of not only the subject of General Science but also, as asserted by him, the subject of Model Drawing. According to him, he was issued the roll number, took the examination and passed in both the subjects. On the strength of provisional certificate, he claims to have been admitted in the College, respondent No,2 herein. However, subsequently, the Board refused to issue the certificate and he was expelled from the College. He, therefore, filed the suit for the relief noted above.
3. In support of the revision, learned counsel has claimed that the decree is without jurisdiction as section 29 of the Punjab Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976 (XIII of 1976), bars the jurisdiction of the Court. He further pointed out that under rule 18 of Chapter-I regarding Secondary School Examination, appearing in the Calendar of the Board, only a candidate who has passed the Secondary School Examination can be allowed to appear in subsequent examination in a subject or subjects not offered by him previously. According to learned counsel, since the respondent failed in the subject of General Science, he could not have appeared in the subject of Model Drawing and even if he was issued the roll number and he appeared in the examination, he cannot benefit from the illegality as there cannot be estoppel against law. On facts, he has drawn my attention to Exh.D/1, the admission form in which the petitioner has indicated that he failed in the subject of General Science at the relevant column.
4. In reply learned counsel for respondent No,1 has contended that objection to jurisdiction has not been taken in the written statement or in the memo of first appeal and as such, cannot be raised now. Again by inviting attention to the document (Exh.D/1), learned counsel has pointed out that in the following column the plaintiff had mentioned Model Drawing as the subject in which he would be appearing. Learned counsel's emphasis has been that the Board having permitted the plaintiff to take the examination in General Science and Model Drawing and the plaintiff having passed the same and taken admission in the College, the Board cannot now resile from that position and withhold the issue of certificate. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to written statement wherein it is urged mat the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and according to his interpretation, this means that the Board was objecting to the jurisdiction of the Court.
5. Section 29' of the Act reads:- "29. No act done, order made or proceedings taken by a Board in pursuance of the provisions of this Act shall be called in question in any Court."
On the face of it, it takes away the jurisdiction of the Court to question the act done, order made or proceedings taken by a Board in pursuance of the provision of the Act. The question being argued is pure question of law and touches the very jurisdiction of the Court and maintainability of the suit.
I am amused that the two Courts seem to be unaware of the provision as no reference is made to it in their judgments. I am equally amused that a clear-cut objection in so many words has not been taken in the written statement. Possibly the counsel himself was unaware of the provision. But jurisdiction cannot be assumed by ignorance of law. It has to be there and it is the duty of the Judge to be aware of the provisions of law touching the jurisdiction. I respecting of the fact whether this objection has been taken or not, it has to be given effect. To examine the jurisdictional errors and excesses is the purpose of revisional jurisdiction. This objection is not only allowed to be raised, but. I am afraid, has to be upheld. Clearly the act of the Board in refusing to issue the certificate is in conformity with Rule 18 of the Rules and the Board was, therefore, acting in pursuance to the provisions of the Act. Even if the plaintiff was able to have the Roll number issued and take the examination in the additional subject of Model Drawing, this cannot estop the Board from reverting to and enforcing the rule as admittedly there cannot be estoppel against law.
6. In order to overcome the difficulty presented by rule 18, learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondent did attempt an argument that the plaintiff was declared pass in the subject of General Science by grant of grace marks but, as has been contended by petitioner's learned counsel, there is no evidence to this effect. The argument otherwise has to be rejected because in the plaint the plaintiff clearly says that he failed in the subject of General Science. He could, therefore, reappear in the failed subject and not in any other subject.
7. For the above reasons, this revision is allowed and the impugned judgments and decree are set aside. The suit of respondent No,1 is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. 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.