2001 PLP 1026 (MLD)

To qualify, for Science Group it is necessary to pass Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Mathematics. Rest will be placed in General/Humanities Group." Learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid rules submits that in case of Overseas basis examination of Islamiat is not one of the subject required for the grant of certificate of equivalence. Therefore, same is discriminatory qua the students who passed the 0 Level Examination in Pakistan. Therefore, rule is liable to be struck down as the same is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon Rule 4 of the aforesaid rules which is to the following effect: "Other Countries. Equivalence with SSC passing of Grade‑10 (10 years of schooling) from recognized examination Board or accredited institution." Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Rule 10 clearly reveals that in case of other Countries 10 years schooling without specification of any subject is considered enough for the grant of certificate of equivalence for admission to 1st year in college in Pakistan: He further submits that petitioner is a Christian. Therefore, Islamiyat is not applicable in case of petitioner. He further submits that subject of Ethics and Civics were not offered by either examining Board as is evident from the certificate issued by the British Council on 8‑5‑2000. He further submits that action of the respondents is without lawful authority as the same is hit by Articles 22 and 25 of the Constitution. He further submits that on the basis of Article 22 of the Constitution, the citizens have a fundamental right to education. He further submits that Indian Supreme Court has considered this aspect of the case in AIR 1993 SC 2178 (Nnni Krishnan's case) and laid down the following principle. "Right to education is not stated expressly as a fundamental right in Part‑III, This Court has, however, not followed the rule that unless a right is expressly stated as a fundamental right, it cannot be treated as one. "

2. Learned Deputy Attorney‑General submits that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are well within their right to frame the rules for equivalence qualifications marks under the provisions of Federal Supervision of Curricula, Text Books and Maintenance of Standard of Education Act, 1976 and framed the following rule in its meeting held on 25/26‑2‑1989 vide item No. 13 which is to the following effect: "Requirement of GCE 0 Level 7 Subjects‑‑‑Pakistan Studies and Islamiat (Alternative for non‑Muslims (No. F‑2‑144/86‑IBCC). The Committee noted the decision taken by the IBCC during its 6th meeting held at Mirpur on 23/24th January, 1989 according to which the students of 0 Level will be allowed to appear in Civics/Ethics in lieu of Islamiat in Boards examinations as requirement of 7 subjects." The aforesaid rule clearly reveals that the petitioner has not to appear in Islamiat but has to pass Civics/Ethics in lieu of Islanuat subject. He further submits that reasonable classification is permissible. Therefore, rule is not in C violation of Articles 25 and 22 of the Constitution. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments: 1993 SCMR 1718 (Zaheer-ud‑Din's case), PLD 1993 SC 341 (Aziz Ullah Memon's case) and 1991 SCMR 1041 (I.A. Sherwani's case). He further submits that similar question of law has already been scttled by this Court in Writ Petition No. 10713 of 1996 which was decided by my learned brother K.N. Bhandari, J. on 25‑5‑1998 in Raja Nathaniel Gill v. Government of Pakistan etc.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that respondents Nos.1 and 2 were well within their right to frame the rules for issuing equivalence certificate. 13 support of his contention he relied upon 1998 SCMR 2701 (Ms. Mobeen Sheikh v. Federation of Pakistan). He further submits that petitioner got admission illegally in 1st year Class in violation of the rules of the respondent No.3 as is evident from Annexure‑R/11 attached with the report and parawise comments of the respondent No.3. The aforesaid rules were informed/notified to all the institutions including Kinnaird/College for Women. Respondents were justified to turn down the request of the Principal of the petitioner's college vide impugned letter. He further submits that petitioner's counsel failed to point out any rules and regulations framed by the respondents. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments: 1997 CLC 1192 (Qamar‑ul‑Islam's case), 1995 CLC 1155 (Rifaqat Javaid's case) and 2000 CLC 2029 (Rana Muhammad Irfan Yousaf's case).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal submits that judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents are distinguished on facts and law. Petitioner is penalised by the inaction of the respondents functionaries.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner AIR 1993 SC 2178 (supra) does not support the case of the petitioner, and in fact the cited judgment supported the case of the respondents as is evident from para. 80 of the judgment and the relevant observation is reproduced hereunder: "Affiliation is with regard to the syllabi and the course of study. Unless and until they are in accordance with the prescription of the University, degrees would not be conferred. The educational institutions prepare the students for the examination conducted by one University. Therefore, they are obliged to follow the syllabi and the course of the study." Similarly the 2nd contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that rules of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are discriminatory qua the petitioner has no force as the reasonable classification is permissible as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments: 1991 SCMR 1041 (I.A. Sherwani's case), 1993 SCMR 1718 (Zaheer‑ud‑Din's case) and PLD 1993 SC 341 (Aziz‑Ullah Mamon's case). The 3rd contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that action of the respondents is in violation of the Article 22 of the Constitution has also no force as the competent authority has framed rules in its meeting 25/26‑2‑1989, according to which the students of O Levell will be allowed to appear in Civics/Ethics in lieu of Islamiat in Board examination as required to seven subjects. The question of law has already been dealt with by my learned brother K. N. Bhandari, J. in Writ Petition No. 10713 of 1996 and laid down the following principle: "This will be more in the realm of policy than in the field of law. Apparently, the provision of alternative subjects is adequate safeguard to Christian student or for any other non‑Muslim student who does not want to study Islamiat or for that mater, Ikhlaqiat. Learned counsel has not been able to show that any fundamental right or for that matter any legal right has been violated in making provision of study of alternative subject." The aforesaid judgment was approved by the Division Bench of this Court in I.C.A. No.729 of 1998. It is settled principle of law that Calendar of University cannot be changed through verdict of Court as per principle laid down by this Court in Zaheer Aslam's case 1995 CLC 1152. It is also settled principle of law that existence of rule of law would have paramount consideration as per principle laid down by this Court in Rafaqat Javaid's case 1995 CLC 11,

55. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out, any violation committed by the respondents which they are being governed. Therefore, writ petition is as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments'. 1984 SCMR 433 (Ali Mir's case) and 1998 CLC 432 (Ghulam Mustafa's case). It is also settled principle of law that in the absence of any law, petitioner has no vested right and this writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that no rule/law having been violated by the respondents necessitating issuing of writ. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 are justified under the provision of Federal supervision of Curricula Text Books and Maintenance Standard Education Act, 1976 to frame the rules for equating qualifications and marks as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ms. Mobeen Sheikh's case (1998 SCMR 2701) and the relevant observation is as follows: "It may further be observed that to achieve the above objective, the aforesaid Circular providing conversion of Grades or, in other words, translating the Grades into marks in terms of F.Sc. (Pre -Medical) is an act covered by the Act as well as by the aforementioned Resolution, whereby the IBCC was established. In this view of the matter, the authority of the IBCC to issue equivalence certificates/marks certificates is backed by law." Fixation of certain conditions by the respondents for issuing equivalence certificate is a matter pestaining to policy. It is settled principle of law that this Court has only power to interpret the lass and has no power to take the role of the policy maker as per principle laid do‑in by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments: PLD 1973 SC 49 (Zia‑ur‑Rehman's case) and PLD 1993 SC 473. (Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif's case) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered this aspect of the case in Zamir Ahmad Khan's case (PLD 1975 SC 667) and observed as under: "These policies are determined generally with reference to the domestic needs their priorities, availability of foreign exchange and multitudes of other factors of which the Federal Government is the sale arbiter in exercise of its executive authority. The decision taken, falls within the realm of policy making." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zamir Ahmad Khan's case (1978 SCMR 327) observed as under: "The decision taken fall within the realm of policy making, and in all such cases orders made must conform to the policy decision of the Government. In view of this fact it was not possible to subscribe to the proposition that a writ of mandamus would lie against the licensing authority so as to have the effect of defeating the policy competently made by the Federal Government. " The aforesaid proposition of law is also supported by law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sherin Muneer's case (PLD 1990 SC 295). In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition has no merits. It is also settled principle of law that nobody should be prejudiced by the act of the Court as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court (PLD 1975 Lahore 7 (Mian Irshad Ali's case). "It may be stated that the petitioner was allowed to appear in the aforesaid examination under the orders of this Court and that mere appearance in the examination would not confer any right on her if she was otherwise found to be ineligible to appear in the examination." In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the judgment of this Court in Shama Roshan's case 1988 CLC 1137. There is still any other angle on the basis of the following facts: (i) Petitioner was not eligible to get admission in Kinnaird College in violation of rules of respondent No.3, dated 18‑7‑1998. (ii) Respondents No.3 granted admission to the petitioner in 1st year examination. She attended the classes. (iii) Respondent No.3 sent her admission form to appear in the examination. (iv) Respondents‑Board rejected the request .of the Principal vide impugned letter dated 16‑3‑2000. (v) Petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination under the direction of this Court vide order dated 28‑4‑2000. In view of the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner may approach respondent No.3 for redressal of his grievance under Regulation 3.10 as well as respondents Nos. 1 and 2 under hardship regulation. In case the petitioner approaches the respondents then the respondents shall redress the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law under hardship regulation. In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition is disposed of. H.B.T./S‑116/L Order accordingly.