2000 PLP 2689 (YLR)

Samina Talib, Student, M.B.B.S. Punjab Medical College, Faisalabad v. Principal, Punjab Medical College Faisalabad and 4 others C.A. No. 351 of 1999 in C.P. No. 367‑L of 1999 ref. Hamid Khan for Appellant. Dr. Qazi Mohyuddin for Respondent, The learned counsel for the respondent, has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that under section 12(1‑A) (5) of the Punjab Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976, the order impugned in the writ petition was revisable by the Controlling Authority therefore the appeal to view of proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is not maintainable.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that section 12 invoked by the learned counsel for the respondent is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as the order challenged in the writ petition is of the Controller of Examinations, respondent No.2, which under the law is not revisable by the Controlling Authority therefore the appeal is competent. He has made reference to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Samina Talib, Student, M.B.B.S., Punjab Medical College, Faisalabad v. Principal, Punjab Medical College. Faisalabad and 4 others (C.A. No.351 of 1999 in C.P. No.367‑L of 1999), in which section 11‑A of University of Punjab Act, 1973 was examined by their Lordships and, an Infra‑Court appeal was held to be maintainable against the order of the learned Single Judge.

3. In the writ petition filed by the appellant, order of the Controller of Examinations, dated 4‑6‑1996 quashing the result ‑and her consequential expulsion from the college was challenged. Under sub‑section (5) of. section 12(1‑A) of the Act the Controlling Authority has got a supervisory power to anul any proceeding of the "Board" or a "Committee" which is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act or Regulations or the Rules. Government is the Controlling Authority as defined in section I 1 of the Act. Order passed by the Controller of Examinations does root fall within the ambit of section 12(1‑A) (5) of the Act. Board consists of the members, specified in section 5, whereas the Committees art envisaged by section 18 of the Act. In the case Samina Talib v. Punjab Medical College, Faisalabad and others, referred to above, order quashing the result of the petitioner by the Controller of Examinations was challenged in the writ petition, which petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge where against an Infra‑Court appeal was filed, which was dismissed in view of section 11‑A of the Act as not maintainable. On consideration of the relevant provision of law, their Lordships came to the conclusion that only an order passed by the Authority was revisable under section 11‑A, but as the order impugned in the writ petition, had not been passed by the Authority, therefore, the same was not revisable. Intra‑Court appeal was thus held to be maintainable and by provisions of section 3 of the Law Reforms Act. In this case, as the order challenged in the writ petition has neither been passed by the "Board" nor a "Committee", sub section (5) of section 12 (1‑A) of the Act is B not attracted, as such proviso to section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance is not applicable. Accordingly, the objection raised, by the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be upheld, and is repelled. H.B.T./S‑75/L Order accordingly.