2026 PLP 163 (CLC)

SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J.

The instant constitutional petition filed by the petitioners under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constitution"), carries the following relief; i. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly declare that the letters Nos. HEC/HRD/LAWBAL/B-III/OS/24/11-R, HEC/HRD/LAWBAL/B-III/OS/24/13-R, HEC/HRD/LAWBAL/B-III/OS/24/14-R. dated 16.04.2025 issued by respondent No.2 are void and unreasonable to extent of tuition fee and maintenance allowance as the tuition fee for Ph.D programs in most of the targeted universities range between $25000 to $30000 per year. ii. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly issue directions to the respondent No. I to increase the tuition fee allocation up to $30,000 per year and maintenance allowance up to $2200 per month enabling the petitioners to secure admission in universities ranked within the top 500 globally. iii. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly issue directions to the respondents to ensure the timely release of tuition fees, so that the petitioners do not face any financial difficulties while pursuing their education abroad. iv. Any other relief that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be granted in favor of the petitioners, in the interest of justice, equity, and fairness.

2. Relevant facts essential for disposal of the instant petition are that respondent No.2 announced scholarships titled as LLM and Ph.D Scholarships for the students of Balochistan dated 19.12.2022, thus the petitioners being eligible applied for the said scholarships and duly appeared in the test conducted on 18.16.2023, whereafter on 23.11.2023 the results were announced. Per petitioners after lapse of much time, on 12.11.2024, respondent No.2 vide provisional offer letters informed them that the scholarships offer were valid till 15.04.2025 to secure admissions in the foreign universities and allocated $15000 (Fifteen thousand dollars) per year for tuition fees and $1250 (One thousand two hundred and fifty dollars) for monthly maintenance allowance, thus the petitioners being aggrieved approached respondent No.2, but in vain, whereafter they filed Constitutional Petition No.1917 of 2024 before this Court, whereafter time was extended for securing admissions, but the petitioners plea regarding enhancement of tuition fee from $15000 to $30000 per annum and maintenance allowance from $1200 to $2200 per month was not accede to by respondent No.1, hence this petition.

3. In response to notices issued by this Court, Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed their parawise comments separately, contesting the petition on legal as well as factual premises.

4. Heard. Record perused with the able assistance of learned counsel for the adversarial parties.

5. It is case of the petitioners that respondent No.2 vide advertisement dated 19.12.2022 invited applications for LLM and PhD Scholarships for the students of Balochistan , whereafter they duly appeared in the test and qualified the exam, however, respondent No. 2 vide provincial offer letters informed them that their scholarships offer were valid till 15.04.2025 to secure admissions in the foreign universities and allocated $15000 per year for tuition fees and $1250 for monthly maintenance, which letters were challenged by them by means of filing Constitutional Petition No. 1917 of 2024 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 25.03.2025 disposed of the matter in the following terms; "Through instant petition, petitioners have sought relief for extension of time for securing admission in the September/October, 2025 session. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the time has been extended to 13th November, 2025 and in this respect petition has borne fruit, whereas, increase in tuition fee allocation is concerned, the petitioners may approach the Competent Authority in accordance with law. In view of above, the petition is disposed of accordingly."

6. Record reflects that in respect of the instant scholarship program, some other candidates, who had secured foreign scholarships in LLM had also filed Constitutional Petition No. 1999 of 2024 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.02.2025 in the following manner; "According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the grievance of the petitioner has been resolved and they are satisfied, with regard to increasing scholarship amount, they are at liberty to approach the proper forum for redressal of their grievance, in case of any grievance occurred after passing any adverse order by the concerned authority, the petitioners are at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of this court. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner's grievance relating to extension of time for securing admission in the foreign universities has been redressed by extending the same up to 13th November, 2025, but with no increase in yearly tuition fees and monthly maintenance allowance. Undeniably, the scholarships are announced by the government for the welfare and benefit of aspirants in order to pursue the education abroad and ensure that students from all backgrounds, especially those from low-income families, marginalized communities, or aspirants coming from rural areas shall have an opportunity to quality education, contributing to the economy, governance, and innovation, but such initiative obviously is subject to financial constraints, whilst keeping in view the country's economic woes.

8. Be that as it may, when the scholarships were announced certain amount was fixed for tuition fee and monthly allowance as per approved PC-1 for the aspirants of said scholarships, thus the departments are bound to operate within the stipulated financial and policy framework, which cannot be arbitrarily modified on a case-by-case basis, henceforth, the petitioners have no vested right to claim more from the amount as offered, more particularly, when the scholarships were announced for the aspirants, who agreed to the conditions laid down therein and for those it may not be suitable, they may avail any other opportunity.

9. It is well established principle of law that it is not the constitutional mandate of the courts to run and manage the public or private institutions at micro level or to interfere in their internal policy and administrative affairs. The apex court, in the case of "Yasir Nawaz v. Higher Education Commission (PLD 2021 SC 745), while dealing with a matter relating to HEC held that the courts should generally refrain from interfering in the policy decisions taken by the statutory bodies and authorities tasked with running the matters of educational institutions, which otherwise require technical and professional expertise that may only be attained as a result of specialization and experience of working with the educational institutions, but the courts can interfere in a case, where grave injustice has done, which we believe is not available in the instant case.

10. That apart, none of the vested rights of the petitioners have been infringed by the respondents, persuading us to exercise constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.

11. For what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition is dismissed for being shorn of merits. UN/118/Bal Petition dismissed.