1998CLC641 (PLP)

(b) The respondent No.4 may kindly be directed to consider the registration as permanent in any case not to act on the biased, mala fide and rival opinion of the Principal of the College of Home Economics. (c) That the respondent No. l may kindly be directed to finalise the affiliation and to act in accordance with law. It further be declared that the refusal by the Additional Director Public Instructions on behalf of Director Public Instruction, Lahore for the registration of the College with D.P.I., through Letter No.27/48 90/35227, dated 13‑12‑1995 is based on mala fide and the same is not sustainable. It is further declared that the non‑registration of the institution with the D.P.I. is not ground for refusal for affiliation with the Punjab University. It is further prayed that the respondent No.4 may kindly be directed to act in accordance with law within the parameters of guidelines and requirement of Ordinance, 1984. Respondent may kindly be directed to affiliate and register the college in accordance with law. Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit may kindly be granted."

4. Number of writ petitions have also been instituted by the students of the College against the refusal of the University to grant them roll numbers for examinations on the ground of non‑affiliation. This petition was admitted on 21‑11‑1996 on the ground that connected petitions by the students stood admitted. Connected petitions of students have also been heard and are being separately disposed of.

5. Report and parawise comments have been submitted both by respondents Nos.l to 3 and separately by respondent No.4. It is stated by the University that since the College does not fulfil the conditions laid down in section 35 of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and further that since the institution College has not been registered under the Ordinance, therefore, the University has legitimately and legally refused the affiliation. In this connection it is averred that number of Affiliation Committees in their respective reports did not recommend affiliation for the reason stated therein. It is pointed out that the findings of each of the Committee were communicated to the petitioner with the direction to remove the deficiencies so that the question of affiliation could be finally decided. It is maintained that since the defects pointed out were not removed, therefore, the University is justified in declining affiliation and further justified in refusing to allow the students of the College to take the relevant examinations. It is maintained that number of students were permitted to take the examination only under the orders of this Court and this Court made it clear that the interim permission to take the examination was purely conditional and the result of the examination would not confer any right to the degree. This was subject to the final decision of the writ petitions. Respondent No.4 in its comments has taken a similar instance and has also stated that number of District Committees were formed who visited the premises of the College on various dates with reasonable intervals and report of the Committee on every visit went against the petitioner -College and that on being called upon to meet the objections and to come up to the criteria pointed out by the Committee, the petitioner‑College failed and hence the case for registration was finally closed on 13‑12‑1995, the order being now impugned.

6. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner‑College challenged the veracity of the reports of the District Committees on the ground that the same were biased and incorrect, inasmuch as, one of its members was the Principal of Government College of Home Economics who has been recording adverse findings against the College on account of rivalry. It is also urged that the question of affiliation has to be decided independently by the University according to its own law and rules and the regulations and merely because registration has been refused by the Government under the Ordinance, is no ground to deny affiliation to the petitioner. These submissions have been refuted both by the learned Assistant Advocate‑General appearing for Government/respondent No.4 and by learned counsel appearing for the University‑ ‑‑other respondents. It is pointed out that on the asking of the petitioner, the Committees were repeatedly constituted and the objected members were removed and in all the five inspections by different Committees, the College was not found suitable for registration. Reports of the various committees have been placed on record. Necessary correspondence showing that the petitioner was duly informed of the findings of the Committees have also been placed on record.

7. A perusal of the reports of the Committees placed on the file reveals that number of serious deficiencies existed and were pointed out. It cannot be said nor it has been argued that those objections are frivolous. This Court is not called upon to sit in judgment over the factors/conditions shown to be absent and which are required to be made good, provided these are relevant to the purposes of the Ordinance, viz., regulation and promotion of the private educational institutions. The objective of the Ordinance is to see that private educational institutions impart quality education and that the students are not exploited in any manner nor they are denied facilities which should, ordinarily, be available in the educational institution. Keeping this purpose in view, I would hold that the conditions/deficiencies/shortcomings noted by the various Committees are highly relevant to the object of the Ordinance and this finding should be enough for the purposes of judicial review. This Court may not and is not required to sit as a Judge over the factual findings. There is, therefore, weight in the submission of the learned Assistant Advocate‑General that the registration has been rightly refused by respondent No.4.

8. The allegation of malice against the Principal of Government College for Home Economics, Gulberg, does not improve the case of the petitioner -College. The said Principal was only one of the members of the Committee which consisted of 6/7 other senior Professors/Officials. It is not the case of the petitioner before me that the other members of the Committee also suffered the bias allegedly harboured by the Principal. It will be seen that on the demand of the petitioner, the Principal was removed from the membership of the Committee and the fresh Committee also came to the similar conclusion that the petitioner‑College was not up to the mark and, therefore, was not entitled to be registered. The allegation of bias is otherwise difficult to uphold, inasmuch as, the Government College of Home Economics is not a private institution as the petitioner‑College is, and therefore, it cannot be said that as Head of the College, the Principal would have some monetary interest or the principal would be sharing the profits of the Government College for Home Economics,

9. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances alleged, the necessary proof of malice and mala fide on the part of the aforesaid principal is lacking. Some of the reports make interesting reading and in one of the reports of the Inspection Committee duly communicated to the petitioner‑College vide letter of respondent No.4, dated 12‑6‑1994, it was pointed out that:‑‑‑ (a) Food Laboratory is of kitchen size which cannot house a class of 24 students for practicals at a time. . (b) No Blackboard or proper working areas are, available. (c) Library facilities are extremely inadequate. (d) Students who remained absent after admission, were kept on roll. (e) During the stay of the Committee no student was around in the college. It appears that the college is non‑operational. (f) Rooms were rented to persons other than the college students. ? The above are some of the findings/observations. These and some other findings have been repeated in the subsequent reports. All the members of the Committee have unanimously signed these reports. The allegation of malice, therefore, is difficult to uphold. This contention is repelled.

10. The affiliation by the University is regulated by section 35 of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973 This provision read with the rules and regulations provides complete guidelines for affiliation of educational institutions. The respondent‑University has been examining the question of affiliation from time to time and members of the Affiliation Committee have also been visiting the college and have been unanimously recommending non‑ affiliation on the grounds similar to the ones noted above. It is true that non‑registration under the Ordinance is not one of the considerations laid down in section 35 (ibid). However, since the Ordinance is the law of the land, the University is well within its right to insist that the educational institutions desirous of affiliation must fulfil the law of the land. For this insistence the University does not necessarily have to fall back upon section

35. However, this argument in this case looses significance, inasmuch as independent of non‑registration under the Ordinance, the Affiliation Committee of the University has not been recommending affiliation on the ground of absence of necessary facilities and the factors laid down in section

35. The contention of the petitioner, therefore, that the refusal by the University to grant affiliation is bad since it is based on irrelevant consideration, viz., non‑registration is without merit As noted, non‑registration is not the only ground.

11. At the cost of repetition let it be recorded that the Affiliation Committee of the University visited the College on 13‑7‑1992 and, as noted in its report, did not find the available facilities like staff, library, building, playground, and. laboratory up to the mark or altogether lacking and recommended that affiliation be not granted. This was communicated to the petitioner on 20‑10‑1992 On representation of the petitioner, the Affiliation Committee visited the College again and this time it also found that the College was not registered under the Ordinance and was advised to obtain registration in the first instance. Once again it would not be proper for this Court to oversee the correctness of the findings of the Affiliation Committee in respect of facilities etc., and even if this exercise could be undertaken, there is no material on record to come to a different finding.

12. An objection has also been taken on behalf of the University that refusal to grant affiliation can be challenged by way of appeal under section 39 of the Act to the Senate and this having not been done, this petition should be dismissed on this ground as well. Reliance is placed on Hafiz Muhammad Arif Dar v. Income Tax Officer PLD 1989 SC 109 and Ch, Muhammad Ismail Fazal Zada, Civil Judge, Labore (PLD 1996 SC 246). In the latter judgment the Supreme Court has observed at page 249 as follows: ‑‑ "

9. The High Courts are already huddled up‑with thousands of cases. If the litigant public is permitted to take all sorts of disputes to the High Courts without first availing of the other remedies available to them, under law, it will not only necessarily increase the work‑load of the High Courts but would also defeat the provisions of law by which the said remedies have been made available. Such a spree on the part of the litigant public would, if we may say so amount to abuse of the Constitutional jurisdiction which is to be exercised by the High Courts in exceptional cases to provide justice which cannot be otherwise obtained by the aggrieved parties " Learned Assistant Advocate‑General has taken a similar objection that against impugned order, dated 13‑5‑1 495. an appeal is competent under section 10 of the Ordinance to the‑ Secretary Education, but this wholesome and adequate remedy has not been availed of. In reply no explanation has been rendered by the petitioner's learned counsel as to why the statutory remedy of appeal under section 39 of the University of Punjab Act and under section 10 of the Ordinance has been availed of. The dictum/observations of the Supreme Court are, therefore, clearly attracted and on this ground as well this petition is liable to be dismissed.

13. It may be noted that when the learned counsel for the petitioner had almost completed his arguments, Mr. Mahmood Khan, Chairman of the Society/College, filed an application seeking permission to engage another counsel. This permission was declined as it was noted that no justification for adjournment was made as the learned counsel had substantially completed the arguments. Instead the aforesaid Mahmood Khan was given the opportunity to address the Court, which he did. He merely repeated what had already been stated by the learned counsel.

14. It is relevant to observe that while private sector has to and can play effective role in the field of education but it cannot be permitted to provide substandard education at a high cost to be borne by the students and their parents. The provisions of the Ordinance are quite wholesome but unfortunately have not been strictly applied by those upon whom the duty of the application of the provisions of the Ordinance has been cast. In this case, as in some other cases dealt by me, I have noted that institutions are allowed to run in breach or in relaxation of section 3 of the Ordinance Section 3 is worded in a negative form and it prohibits an institution from running unless it is registered in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance and the rules. An institution is said to commence running when it admits the students, receives fees etc., from them and starts imparting education/instructions. This running cannot take place without prior registration. As has been noted, in this case the petitioner‑College was allowed to operate without prior registration. No action such as envisaged under section 11 of the Ordinance has been initiated against the institution. At no stage the affected or prospective students have been wanted by public proclamation or otherwise that the petitioner‑College is not registered and, therefore, it cannot run and that the students should avoid the same. The result is that either by misrepresentation or by design, the students get admitted and later on face complications due to non‑registration/non‑affiliation of the institution, It is clear to this Court that if timely and vigilant action is taken by .the respondents, complications such as presently arising can be avoided and the students spared the agony and the monetary loss. This Court can only hope that in future the relevant authorities would take timely and necessary action, as noted above.

15. For what has been stated above, it is held that the action of the respondent in denying registration as well as affiliation to the petitioner‑College is well within the limits of law and the petitioner‑College has failed to show that F the same is, in any manner, without lawful authority. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with costs.

16. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Education Department, Lahore, as well as the Vice‑Chancellor of the respondent‑University for action in accordance with observations made in para. '' 14 of the judgment. A.A./I‑28/L Petition dismissed.