AISHA BIBI Versus ABDUL WAHAB

ORDER

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J. ‑‑This is a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal directed against an order dated 14‑1‑1978 passed by a Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing the writ petition (W.P.No.3739 of 1977) filed by the petitioner in limine.

2. The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner appeared in the Secondary School (Spring) Examination, 1977 held by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore. On 29‑6‑1977, when the petitioner was taking up Urdu Paper "B" in the examination centre, Kot Radha Kishan he was found to have in his possession some objectionable material. His statement was‑immediately recorded wherein he stated:

3. This statement along with the report of the Deputy Superintendent and the Superintendent, Centre No.2, Government High School, Kot Radha Kishan, dated 29‑6‑1977 was forwarded to the authorities concerned who issued a regular charge‑sheet to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his written reply in which he denied the charge. He was given an opportunity to appear before the Discipline Committee who after examining the record and hearing him found him guilty and disqualified him from passing the examination in which he had appeared and from appearing in the following examination. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order. He was personally heard in the appeal as well but the appeal was rejected as being without any merit. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court. .

4. The main contention urged before the learned Judge in the High Court was that in fact the Discipline Committee had exonerated the petitioner and had informed him that he was being let off but surprisingly in the written communication which was sent to the petitioner communicating the result of the deliberations of the Discipline Committee he was told that he had been punished. On this hypothesis, it was contended that once the Discipline Committee had decided to hold the petitioner not guilty, this order could not be reviewed subsequently. The learned Judge of the High Court considered this aspect of the matter and came to the conclusion that there was no force in this contention. In this connection he referred to the grounds of appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Discipline Committee and noted that no such plea was taken by the petitioner therein. He further observed that this allegation had been denied in the report which was called for from the respondent‑Board and that there was no material supporting the bald averment of the petitioner in this respect. The writ petition was, accordingly, dismissed in limine on 14‑1‑1978.

5. A review application under Order XLVII, Rule 1 and section 114, C.P.C. was filed against the above order which too proved unsuccessful. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal.

6. The same ground that was urged before the High Court has been reiterated before us but we are inclined to agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in the High Court that no order "letting off" the petitioner was passed by the Discipline Committee when he appeared before it. The petitioner had confessed his guilt and the charge levelled against him stood fully established by the recovery of the objectionable material from his person, the report of the Deputy Superintendent and the Superintendent of the Examination Centre and the statement of the petitioner recorded on the very sheet on which the reports of the Deputy Superintendent and the Superintendent were recorded.

7. In these circumstances, no case for interference is made out. This petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.

8. M.I./M‑519/S Leave refused.