Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition No. 156‑R of 1984, decided on 20th May, 1985.
(From the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 1‑4‑1984, passed in Writ Petition No. 139 of 1984).
‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Educational institutions‑‑Disciplinary action for using unfair means in examination‑‑Validity challenged‑‑Point of jurisdiction taken in grounds of writ petition‑‑High Court judgment being silent about it giving rise to presumption that point was not urged during its hearing‑‑Petitioner having generally questioned in memorandum of appeal question of jurisdiction of Enquiry Officer, had not taken objection specifically there‑‑Case not fit for interference by Supreme Court‑‑Petition dismissed.
Muhammad Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 20th May, 1985.
The petitioner was punished by the authorities of the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, for the use of unfair‑means in the examination, with which the High Court refused to interfere in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
2. The contention is that the punishment had been awarded by the Enquiry Officer who was not competent to do so as under rule 17 of the Rules relevant to the conduct of examinations, the Standing Committee or, if that Committee is not unanimous, the Chairman himself or the Board, if the matter is referred by the Chairman to it, can take a decision. The point, it appears, had been taken in ground (k) of the grounds in the writ petition but the High Court's judgment is silent about it, giving rise to a presumption that the point had not been urged during the hearing of the writ petition. In any case, we find that the petitioner, though he had in the memorandum of appeal generally questioned the jurisdiction of the Enquiry Officer, had not taken the objection specifically there. It is, therefore, not a fit case for interference by this Court. The petition is dismissed.
M.I Petition dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer