Brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner appeared in Intermediate Annual Examination 1999 under Roll No.5020 held by the respondents. The respondents also allotted Centre No. 147-F (Government Islanua College for Women, Cooper Road, Lahore). Respondent No. l received a complaint against the petitioner with regard to use of unfair means who sent the same to the Chief Secrecy Officer for report. The Chief Secrecy Officer on 17-5- 1999 submitted a report to respondent No.1 which reveals that additional sheets attached by the petitioner with answer book of English Part II found to have been written by other than candidate which were smuggled in the Centre after the time of paper was over in connivance with supervisory staff. Respondent No.1 constituted a committee consisting of Ch. Muhammad Ikram and Mrs. Farzana Shaheen to probe into the matter. The Chief Secrecy Officer also sent another report to respondent' No. l which reveals that answer book of Chemistry Part-II of the petitioner had been found in the Bundle of Urdu Part II. Respondent No. l directed the office to register unfair means case against the petitioner. The aforesaid committee also sent report to respondent No. l which reveals that petitioner committed unfair means in the said examination in connivance with the supervisory staff. Office of respondents lodged F.I.R. At Police Station Qilla Gujjar Singh against the culprits on 21-5-1999. Two charge-sheets were issued to the petitioner regarding the unfair means committed by the petitioner on 12-6-1999 under Rules 6.8(IV) and 6/8(VI) and under Rule 6.8(VIII) and 6.9 respectively. The petitioner submitted replies of the aforesaid charge sheets controverted the allegations levelled in the charge sheets. The Disciplinary Committee after recording the statement -and providing personal hearing to the petitioner disqualified the petitioner from passing this examination and two subsequent examinations vide order dated 15-11- 1999. Petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the appellate Committee who also dismissed the same after providing personal hearing to the petitioner and after recording her statement on 3-5-2000. Petitioner being aggrieved filed 'revision petition before the revision committee who after providing personal hearing to the petitioner and after recording statement rejected the same vide order, dated 10-6-2000. Petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the tribunals below have decided the case against the petitioner on surmises and conjectures. In support of his contention he relied upon PLD 1971 SC 838 (Summer Pervaiz's case). He further submits that no action had been taken against the supervisory staff and employees of the Board. He further submits that petitioner appeared in the examination in the allotted centre and action of the respondents is in violation of the instructions of the respondents as the respondents did not register unfair means case against the petitioner in the centre.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that all the tribunals below have given concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner and this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own decision in place of the decision of the tribunal below in Constitutional jurisdiction. He further urged that petitioner is a beneficiary as the petitioner had committed unfair means with the connivance of the supervisory staff. He further urged that petitioner had not alleged any specific allegations of malice against the respondents. He further urged that disqualification period has already been expired.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. It is admitted fact that all the tribunals below have given concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- 1974 SCMR 279 PLD 1981 SC 246 (Muhammad Sharif's case) and PLD 1981 SC 522 (Abdul Rehman Bajwa's case).
It is also settled proposition of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own finding in place of the finding of the tribunal below as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Mussaduq's case (PLD 1973 Lahore 600). Petitioner has alleged general allegations of malice against the respondent which is not permissible in the eyes of law as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saeed Ahmad's case (PLD 1974 SC 151) and Amanullah Khan's case (PLD 1990 SC 1092). In this view of the matter, there is no allegation of mala fide against the respondents. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as per principle laid down by this Court in Saeed Nawaz's case (PLD 1981 Lahore 371). The respondents did not violate of their own rules and regulation. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.I Mir's case (1984 SCMR 433).