2024 PLP 115 (MLD)

DR. KHURSHID IQBAL, J.

Hailing from Lakki Marwat, the petitioner (Shafiullah), along with his elder brother, is a student of F.Sc. in Shaheen Children Academy and College of Sciences, District Karak. His annual examination is scheduled to commence from 03.06.2023. He alleges to have chosen in exam form, his own college as the centre for the forthcoming examination. He says that he was shocked when came to know that the Board has constituted Government Higher Secondary School Jandari Karak as the centre of his examination. He contends that his father has a dispute over a vehicle with one Qayyum Khan, a resident of Jandari Karak. Referring to a daily diary No.15, dated 28.05.2023, he further alleges that the said person poses a threat to his life while attending papers in the examination hall so notified. For this reason, his father moved an application to the Board for shifting the notified centre of examination to the college of the petitioner, but in vain. This led to filing of this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution for directing the respondents to change the centre of his examination in the aforesaid manner.

2. We have heard Mr. Farhan Ullah Gran Advocate for the petitioner and scanned through the record.

3. The matter with regard to the change of centre of examination is regulated by Chapter-XIV of the Rules made under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education Ordinance, 1990. For the sake of quick reference, it is reproduced below:

1. A candidate may he permitted to change the examination centre under the following circumstances: 1. if the candidate or his father or his guardian has been transferred. The fact of transfer shall be certified by the Head of the office in which the candidate or his guardian is employed. 2. if the candidate or his father or guardian changes the place of business or shifts to another station, this fact shall be certified by a Gazetted Officer, not lower the rank of a Magistrate II Class or by the Headmaster or principal who signed the admission form. 3. if on account of ill health the candidate is not able to proceed to the centre of examination allotted to him. In such cases the application shall be accompanied by a certificate signed by a Registered Medical Practitioner.

2. In order to avoid real hardships, the Controller of Examinations may in exceptional cases, not covered by these Rules, allow change of Centre with the approval of the Chairman.

3. An application for a change of centre shall be made on a prescribed form and shall be submitted through the person signing the admission form. If he is not available, it should come through a Gazetted Officer not below the rank of a Magistrate II Class.

4. In case of men candidates; the application must be accompanied by two copies of the candidate's photograph bearing the candidate's signature in full duly attested on the back by the officer through whom the admission form was sent.

5. An application for change of centre in all cases 1-4 shall ordinarily be entertained upto 30 days before the commencement of the examination.

6. Each application for change of centre shall be accompanied by a lee of Rs.1000/- which shall not be refunded even if the change of centre is not availed of or is not allowed.

7. The Controller shall have the power to reject an application for a change of centre without assigning any reason for his orders.

4. This chapter provides for the conditions to be satisfied for the change of centre of examination. Rule-2 ibid vests discretion in the Controller of Examinations to allow the change of centre with the approval of the Chairman in exceptional circumstances. To get his case covered by Rule 2 ibid, the petitioner has mainly relied upon the daily diary referred to above. Without prejudice, the petitioner may have a real hardship case. However, this rule only permits for the change of a centre of examination, whereas he in essence seeks constitution of his college as the centre of examination. A distinction must be drawn between 'change of centre of examination' and 'constitution of a place as the centre of examination'. The former is governed by Chapter-XII, while the latter by Chapter-XIV of the ibid rules. A centre of examination can be changed for a student from one place to another, provided the latter is also a duly constituted centre of examination. Conversely, such centre cannot he allowed to be changed from one place to another, if the latter is not so constituted at the time of such change. In such circumstances, seeking a change would definitely amount to seeking constitution of a place as such centre. To be more specific, it would be a request for the change of centre of examination if the desired place is also a duly constituted place for examination, whereas to seek change of centre of examination to a place not duly constituted for examination would be a request for constitution of such place as the centre of examination. Needless to mention, Rule-3 of Chapter-XII ibid vests discretion in the Chairman of the Board to constitute a place as the centre of examination under special circumstances and on such terms as may be determined by him under the rules. In this case, it has not been established that the college of the petitioner has duly been constituted as the centre of examination. Without prejudice, suffice it to say that besides the notified centre of examination, the petitioner could seek the change of his examination hall to another notified centre within the jurisdiction of the Board. However, his emphasis on the change of the desired centre does not hold any ground. Firstly, the request amounts to constitution of the college as the new centre of examination which is entirely different from change of centre of examination. Secondly, suitability of a place for constitution as the centre of examination is purely an internal matter of the Board which has absolute right of decision in such matter. This Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction would not substitute its view with the one adopted by the Board after making assessment of the attending circumstances vis- -vis the relevant Rules. Thirdly, it is the privilege of the Board which cannot be claimed as of right. The college in question is a private institute. Apparently, it appears that its examination hall has been shifted to the Government Higher Secondary School in the same district to ensure transparency in conducting the examination.

5. In addition to the above, Rule-3 ibid commands that an application for the change of centre shall be made on a prescribed form which shall be submitted through the person signing the admission form. Nevertheless, the application in question was made on a plain paper and not on the prescribed form. It was moved to the Chairman of the Board by the guardian of the petitioner. It was not submitted through the person having signed the admission forms as required under the rules. At the time of making the subject application, the Government Higher Secondary School Jandari Karak had already been constituted as the centre of examination for the students of the college. Rule-6 makes it obligatory for each application to be accompanied by a fee of Rs.1000/-. The requirement of this rule, too, has not been satisfied. Besides, Rule-7 provides that the Controller shall have the power to reject an application for a change of centre without assigning any reason for his orders.

6. In holding so, we may seek guidance from the law laid down in Khyber Medical University and others v. Aimal Khan and others (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 92). In this case, it has been held that:

4. It has been time and again held by this Court that courts must sparingly interfere in the internal governance and affairs of educational institutions. It is simply prudent that the courts keep their hands off educational matters and avoid dislodging decisions of the university authorities, who possess technical expertise and experience of actual day to day workings of the educational institutions. Every university has the right to set out its disciplinary and other policies in accordance with law, and unless any such policy offends the fundamental rights of the students or violates any law, interference by the courts results in disrupting the smooth functioning and governance of the university. It is, therefore, best to leave the disciplinary, administrative and policy matters of the universities or educational institutions to the professional expertise of the people running them, unless of course there is a violation of any of the fundamental rights or any law.

5. This self-restraint by the courts in matter of educational institutions is based on the wisdom that academic freedom and institutional autonomy of the universities must be protected and safeguarded. Academic freedom is not merely liberty from restraints on thought, expression, and association in the university, but also that the university should have the freedom to make decisions about the educational matters including disciplinary matters. As "it is the business of a university to provide that atmosphere which is most conducive to speculation, experiment and creation. It is an atmosphere in which there prevail 'the four essential freedoms' of a university; who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught and who may be admitted to study.

7. Although, the facts of the above cited case pertain to an issue arisen in a University, but the principle laid down therein is that the Court should not interfere in the internal governance of an educational institution. This principle is attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. The constitution of an examination hall is the function of the respondents. The respondents may exercise the discretion in the manner as warranted under the rules which cannot be interfered with, unless it infringes on the fundamental rights of the students. It has not been pinpointed as to what prejudice has been caused to the students by not constituting the college as the centre of examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any mala fide on the part of respondents for allocation of the Government Higher Secondary School Jandari Karak as examination hall for the forthcoming examination. The learned counsel could not convince us for our indulgence into the matter.

8. In this view of the matter, we are fully convinced that this petition is devoid of any force. We, therefore, dismiss it in limine. MH/239/P Petition dismissed.