P L D 2017 High Court (AJ&K) 32 (PLP)

GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, C.J.

Through the captioned petitions Cabinet decision dated 25.08.2016, notification dated 02.09.2016, Cabinet decision dated 06.10.2016 and even dated notifications 21.10.2016 have been challenged for having been issued without lawful authority. A direction is also sought for implementation of notification dated 31.12.2012 and even dated notifications 26.11.2015 in letter and spirit. As the captioned petitions raise common questions of facts and law, hence, were heard together and are decided as such. Precise facts of Petition No.2694/2016, filed on behalf of Ch. Latif Akber and others, are that petitioners Nos.1 to 3 are renowned political workers and belong to Pakistan People's Party, Azad Kashmir and they have held the offices of Ministers Finance, Higher Education and Elementary and Secondary Education, respectively from 2011 to 2016. While performing their duties as Ministers, they have implemented the National Education Policy, 2009 in the Azad State of Jammu and Kashmir during their tenure. It is averred that petitioners Nos.4 to 9 are First Class State Subjects and are directly affected through the impugned notifications as their children have been admitted in the upgraded institutions and due to the cancellation of the Education Package their children have been deprived of from the right of education. It is submitted that in pursuance of joint declaration dated 16.09.2011 (Annexure "PB"), a high level Committee was constituted vide notification dated 16.02.2012 under the Chairmanship of the then Chief Secretary. The Committee submitted its report (Annexure "PD") and on the recommendations of the said Committee, the Education Policy, 2009, was adapted in Azad Jammu and Kashmir with the name and style as "Kashmir Education Policy". The Finance Department was asked to provide necessary funds, which, asked the concerned Secretariats to provide the breakup of the required staff vide letter dated 01.12.2014. It is stated that the required details were submitted to the Finance Department, which, sent a request to the Federal Finance Department for providing additional funds for implementation of Kashmir Education Policy, however, the same was regretted, whereupon, the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir decided to arrange funds for implementation of Kashmir Education Policy by imposing additional taxes through Finance Act, 2015. The matter was re-examined by the Finance Department and ultimately was placed before the Cabinet in its meeting held on 9-6-2015. The Cabinet overruled the view of the Finance Department and directed the concerned Secretariats to implement the aforesaid decision forthwith. Thereafter, the matter was again scrutinized by the Finance Department as is evident from letter dated 29.06.2015 addressed to the Secretary Higher Education, whereby concurrence of Finance Department was conveyed. It appears that Rs.700 Million were allocated in the financial year 2015-16 for phase-wise implementation of Kashmir Education Policy. In view of the letter of the Finance Department, a notification was issued from the office of the Secretariat Elementary and Secondary Education on 26.11.2015, whereby the institutions listed therein were upgraded/established along with the listed staffs. Similarly, on the same date another notification was issued from the Secretariat Higher Education, whereby different Colleges were upgraded. After the change of Government, the present Govt. constituted a sub-committee for revisiting the Education Package. The recommendations of the Committee were approved on 06.10.2016. In pursuance of the aforesaid decision, even dated notifications were issued by both the Secretariats i.e. the Higher Education and Elementary and Secondary Education. In view of the decision of Cabinet dated 06.10.2016, the implementation of the Education Package has been postponed. The Cabinet decision and notifications issued in pursuance thereof, have been challenged on the ground that previous Government, after fully arranging finances for the implementation of Kashmir Education policy by imposing specific tax through Finance Act, 2015 had upgraded the institutions on both Colleges and Schools sides and subsequently the budget was approved by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly. It is stated that failure of the incumbent Government to collect the tax and achieve the estimated target cannot be ground for revisiting the Education Package and take away the accrued rights of the State Subjects, therefore, Cabinet decision dated 25.08.2016 and notification dated 01.09.2016 are not sustainable. It is contended that Government/respondent has no authority under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 to modify the allocated budget duly approved by the legislature for current fiscal year for a particular purpose, hence, proceeding for revisiting the Education Package is a nullity in the eye of law. It is submitted that respondents, in order to achieve their objectives are trying to allocate the approved budget of Education Package for some unknown purpose, which is not permissible under law, hence, Cabinet decision dated 25.08.2016 and notification dated 01.09.2016 are not sustainable. It is stated that after approval of the budget by the legislature, the Cabinet has no authority to take any contrary decision, which has been approved by the Legislative Assembly. It is claimed that a large number of students has been admitted in the upgraded institutions, therefore, a vested right is accrued in their favour and the same cannot be taken back. It is averred that respondents have also violated Rules 25 and 28 of the Rules of Business, 1985, while making the impugned decision and issuing the notifications, hence, the same are liable to be quashed. The petition has been contested by the respondents through written statement, wherein, it is pleaded that petition is not maintainable for having been filed in violation of sub-rule (2) of Rule 32 of the High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, which provides that petitioners shall annex with writ petition, the certified copies of the impugned orders. It is further averred that the aforesaid provision is mandatory and non-compliance thereof is fatal, hence, petition is liable to be dismissed. It is also stated that petitioners are not aggrieved persons because they are not affected by revisiting the Education Package in any manner notwithstanding the fact that they are Ex-Ministers and have implemented the Education Policy in that capacity. It is contended that Govt. is competent to revisit any enactment or policy framed by its predecessor Government while exercising the administrative powers and no right of the petitioners has been infringed. It is claimed that move on behalf of the petitioners is mala fide. It is also stated that petitioners are not entitled to any relief even on the basis of judgment of this Court dated 31.03.2016 and the judgment of the apex Court passed in Civil PLA No.131/2016 on 20.05.2016. It is claimed that sub-committee constituted for the purpose, finalized its report on 5-10-2016 and the said report was approved by the Cabinet on 6-10-2016, as a result whereof, the impugned notifications were issued. The other facts stated in the petition have also been refuted by the respondents. The Writ Petition No.2869/2016 titled Muhammad Farooq Awan and others v. Azad Govt. and others, has been filed by the students as well as parents of the students, who have been admitted in upgraded Colleges/Schools. They have challenged the Cabinet decision as well as notifications issued in pursuance thereof on identical grounds, therefore, for the sake of brevity need not to be reiterated. This petition has also been contested by the respondents through written statement on the same grounds and case law, which have been raised in case titled Ch. Latif Akber and others v. Azad Govt. and others, therefore, it is not necessary to reiterate all these grounds for the purpose of decision. In Writ Petition No.2805/2016 filed on behalf of Khalil Ahmed and others, identical grounds have been raised and petitioners of this case are beneficiary of the Cabinet decision taken by the previous Government. The defence of respondents is identical; therefore, it is not necessary to reiterate the same. Barrister Humayun Nawaz Khan, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners in all the petitions, vehemently argued that after adapting the Kashmir Education Policy in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, requirements for its implementation were sought from the respective Secretariats/Departments. He argued that required detail of staff and need of establishment of new institutions and upgradation of some of the institutions was recommended/indicated by the respective department. He submitted that Finance Department took up the matter with the Federal Government but due to financial crunch, required funds were not provided, even then, the former Government decided to implement the Education Policy by upgrading the institutions i.e. on Colleges and Schools sides from its own sources and for that purpose special taxes were imposed through Finance Act, 2015. The learned Advocate argued that matter was placed before the Cabinet and the Cabinet vide its decision dated 09.06.2015 approved the same by overruling the letter of Finance Department dated 16.11.2015. The learned Advocate submitted that the decision of the Cabinet was notified vide even dated notifications on 26.11.2015 by the Secretariat Higher Education and Secretariat Elementary and Secondary Education. The learned Advocate contended that as a result of these notifications the institutions, which were listed in the notifications stood upgraded. The learned Advocate argued that after approval of the budget of upgraded institutions by the Assembly, Cabinet has no authority to review the decision taken by the earlier cabinet or undo the approval of the Legislative Assembly. The learned Advocate contended that impugned decision of the Cabinet as well as notifications issued in pursuance thereof, are coram non judice, without lawful authority and violative of the judgment of the Supreme Court. He argued that after implementation of the Education Policy, more than five thousand students have been admitted in the upgraded institutions, therefore, they have a right to study and this accrued right cannot be snatched arbitrarily by the Cabinet/Government on the ground of locus potentia. The learned Advocate argued that vires of the Education Package were earlier challenged by the political workers of the present Government and their petition was dismissed by this Court and judgment was upheld by the apex Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. He submitted that neither decision of the executive can frustrate the final verdict of the Courts nor the right protected/granted through the judgment of the Courts can be taken back. The learned Advocate submitted that it had never been the practice in past that firstly land is acquired and after construction of building, an institution is established. According to the learned Advocate this statement of the respondents is impracticable and has no substance. In support of his submissions, the learned Advocate placed reliance on the following cases:-

1. Messrs Radaka Corporation and others v. Collector of Customs and another, [1989 SCMR 353];

2. Nazir Ahmed v. Pakistan and 11 others, [PLD 1970 SC 453];

3. Star Textile Mills Ltd. v. Pakistan and others, [1999 MLD 3001]; In the first case, referred to and relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioners, at page 359 of the report, it was observed as under:- Now, it is settled law that where the departmental practice has followed a particular course in the implementation of some rule, whether right or wrong, it will be extremely unfair to make a departure from it after a lapse of many years and thereby disturb rights that have been settled by a long and consistent course of practice; Reliance in this case was placed on Nazir Ahmed case, PLD 1970 SC

453. In the 3rd case, the same view was reiterated, therefore, needs not to be discussed. Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents vehemently argued that petitioners have sought the implementation of notifications dated 31.12.2012 and even dated notifications 26.11.2015 in letter and spirit and have also called in question the Cabinet decision dated 06.10.2016 along with even dated notifications dated 21.10.2016 but attested copies of these notifications/Cabinet decision have not been annexed with the writ petition as is required under Rule 32(2) of the High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, therefore, petitions are liable to be dismissed without attending their merits. In this regard, the learned Advocate placed reliance on the following case law:-

1. Municipal Committee Dadyal v. Mistri Abdul Rehman and others [1992 SCR 136].

2. Sahibzada Muhammad Ishaque Zafar v. Speaker Legislative Assembly AJK and 3 others PLD 1996 AJK 12;

3. Muhammad Ashfaq Khan and 2 others v. AJ&K Govt. and 4 others [2003 SCR 260];

4. Saira Bashir Butt v. Azad Govt. and others 2015 CLC 452;

5. Saadia Shamshad and 2 others v. The Secretary Education and 3 others [2016 SCR 80];

6. Muhammad Tahir v. Syed Muhammad Nazar Iqbal and 8 others [2016 SCR 586];

7. Ashiq Hussain alias Muhammad Ashraf v. The State [PLD 1994 SC 879];

8. Sardar Farooq Ahmed Khan and 2 others v. Azad Govt. and 3 others [2002 SCR 14];

9. Fazal Hussain (deceased) and 9 others v. Allah Rakhi and 4 others [2016 SCR 55].

10. Ghulam Nabi and another v. Azad Govt. and others [2016 SCR 286]. It is next argued by the learned Advocate that petitioners are not aggrieved in the eye of law and present petitions have been filed for achieving political mileage/objectives. The learned Advocate argued that impression that the Government has cancelled the Education Package is misconceived rather fact of the matter is that Cabinet or Government has not cancelled the Education Package rather a sub-committee was constituted by the Government for indicating the defects and dints in the upgradation of the Colleges and Schools, which, in fact were upgraded/established in derogation to the spirit and aims of Education Policy enforced and adapted in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The learned Advocate contended that several institutions have been established on the basis of pick and choose, without considering the needs of the area as well as public interest. He argued that practically the establishment/upgradation of such institutions, without any staff and acquisition of the land leads to mal-administration and bad governance. The learned Advocate submitted with vehemence that Education Package, if in the present from remains intact, it will ruin the future of thousands of students. The learned Advocate contended that in order to make up the deficiency in the existing institutions and justification of upgraded institutions along with required staff, the Cabinet has taken a decision which is within its jurisdiction and authority both under the Constitution as well as the Rules of Business, therefore, the same cannot be termed as without lawful authority. The learned Advocate submitted that it is wrong to argue that decision has been taken in an hasty manner without there being any report of the Committee. In fact a sub-committee constituted by the Cabinet, submitted its report before the Cabinet before the due date and the same was considered as ex-agenda item in the meeting of the Cabinet. After due deliberation, it was decided that for good governance, the implementation of the Education Package should be postponed/deferred on both sides i.e. Colleges and Schools side forthwith, therefore, neither the notifications under challenge nor the Education Package has been cancelled by the Government. The learned Advocate contended that revisiting of a policy decision is prerogative and within the domain of the Government/Executive and the Government cannot be directed by this Court to follow a particular guideline in performance of its executive functions. He argued that it is also incorrect that Government has undone through the impugned Cabinet decision any enactment of the Legislative Assembly. While referring to the relevant provisions of the Interim Constitution, the learned Advocate argued that approval of the annual budget by the Legislative Assembly is requirement of Section 38 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 and Cabinet is not precluded from making any adjustment in the sanctioned budget that too, has to be laid down before the Assembly at appropriate time. The learned Advocate stated that the contention that Education Package approved by the earlier Government was declared valid by this Court vide judgment dated 31.03.2016 and apex Court vide judgment dated 20.05.2016 is misconceived, fact of the matter is that both the Courts have neither granted any declaration nor issued any direction contemplated by Section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. The learned Advocate argued that aforesaid judgments do not place any restriction on the powers of the Government for revising any decision taken by the defunct Government. In this regard, the learned Advocate placed reliance on the following case laws:-

1. Wattan Party and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others [PLD 2013 SC 167];

2. Mahmudul Haque v. The Controlling Authority, S.D.O. (North) Chittagong and another [PLD 1963 SC 233].

3. Afaquz Zubair v. Muhammad Idris [PLD 1978 Kar. 984];

4. Amer Bakht Azam and 3 others v. Cooperative Model Town Society (1962), Ltd Lahore and 6 others [PLD 2007 Lab. 636];

5. Jehanzeb Khan v. Govt. of the Punjab through Secretary, Education, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 5 others [2005 PLC (CS) 205];

6. Nabi Ahmed and others v. Muhammad Arshad and others [2008 SCMR 1685]; 7 Muhammad Azam Suhail and others v. Govt. of Pakistan through Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Islamabad and others [1998 SCMR 1549];

8. Muhammad Iqbal Khan v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad and 2 others [2003 PLC (CS) 277]; The learned Advocate further contended that judgment of this Court as well as apex Court referred to and relied upon by the petitioners, in fact helps the respondents because in both the judgments, it was categorically opined that policy decision of the Government cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In this regard, the learned Advocate further placed reliance on following case law:-

1. Muhammad Akhtar and 183 others v. Azad Govt. and 7 others [2016 SCR 853]; 2, Govt. of Sindh through Chief Secretary and others v. Khalil Ahmed and others [1994 SCMR 782];

3. Wattan Party and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others [PLD 2013 SC 167]; 4. 2012 CLC 1565, 1962;

5. Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others [2012 SCMR 455];

6. M.D. Tahir, Advocate v. Govt. of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 3 others [1999 PLC (CS) 1524]; 7 Punjab Public Service Commission and another v. Mst. Aisha Nawaz and others [2011 SCMR 1602]; The learned Advocate argued that even otherwise, leave granting or refusing order is not covered as law declared by the apex Court within the ambit of Section 42-B of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. In this regard, the learned Advocate placed reliance on following case law:-

1. Maj. (Retd.) Shehzad Hussain Khan v. Govt. of the Punjab and others [2001 PLC CS 248];.

2. Trusteese of the Port of Karachi v. Muhammad Saleem [1994 SCMR 2213];

3. Khairullah v. Sultan Muhammad and another [1997 SCMR 906];

4. Abdullah v. The State [2001 MLD 1554]; The learned Advocate argued that decision of the Cabinet and issuance of notifications were justified on the facts and law because as per report of the sub-committee, more than thirteen thousand posts are required in the already established institutions of the Education Department. In rebuttal, Barrister Humayun Nawaz Khan, the learned Advocate submitted that requirements of shortage of staff and upgradation of institutions were earlier calculated by the Education Department before introducing the Education Package. The learned Advocate argued that present number of posts shown by the respondents, in fact are bogus, which have been submitted by those officers under political pressure, who have given the data at the time of approval of package by the defunct Government, therefore, this discrepancy of the staff shown by the bureaucracy is mala fide and has been shown to strengthen the hands of present Government for revisiting the Education Package. The learned Advocate contended that though the posts/staff have not been provided as was required but this is also not a ground for revisiting the Education Package because a petition was filed in the name of present Prime Minister before this Court that the appointments may not be made and stay order was granted by the Court, therefore, outgoing Government could not make the appointments. The learned Advocate contended that objection on behalf of the respondents that petitions have been filed in violation of Rule 32(2) of High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, has no substance because petitioners have applied to the concerned authorities for the copies of impugned decision/ notifications but the same were not supplied to them. The learned Advocate argued that the decision as well as issuance of notifications has not been denied by the respondents, therefore, non-filing of attested copies with the petitions is not fatal. The learned Advocate argued that almost all the copies have been filed, when provided during pendency of the cases. The learned Advocate argued that arguments from the respondents' side that petitioners are not aggrieved is also devoid of any force because the petitioners are political workers and Ex-Ministers, who have introduced the Education Package and they have earned good will due to the enforcement of the Package. They are not direct affectees but even then can file the petition. The learned Advocate contended that notwithstanding the fact that some of the petitioners are not aggrieved even then the petitions have been filed by the parents of the students, who have been admitted in the upgraded institutions and this fact even otherwise has not been denied in the report of sub-committee, therefore, petitions cannot be thrown out mere on this ground. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. The contention of Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents that all the petitioners are not aggrieved has a substance. Petition No. 2694/16 has been filed by political dignitaries Ex-Ministers in whose tenure the Education Package was approved and enforced. They are also active political workers. In their estimation, they have introduced the Education Package for the betterment of the people of State and has earned a good will, therefore, they have right to file petition in pro bono publico for enforcement of the rights of the State Subjects. We are of the considered view that the superior Courts took lenient view with regard to phrase "aggrieved person" employed in Section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, so far as public interest litigation is concerned. It is also well settled proposition of law that a right in strict juristic sense is not required to be established by a petitioner before this Court for success of his petition, if he has made up a case of his personal interest in the performance of lawful duty by the respondents, which if not performed or performed in a manner not permitted by law would result in the loss of some personal benefit or advantage etc. he can safely be termed as aggrieved person. The proposition was considered by the apex Court of Pakistan in Mian Fazal Din's case [PLD 1969 SC 223]. At page 231 of the report, it was observed as under:- "It is clear from the above that the right considered sufficient for maintaining a proceeding of this nature is not necessarily a right in the strict juristic sense but it is enough if the applicant discloses that he had a personal interest in the performance of the legal duty which if not performed or performed in a manner not permitted by law would result in the loss of some personal benefit or advantage or the curtailment of a privilege or liberty or franchise." This view has been continuously followed by the apex Court of Pakistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir in various cases up-till now. In the judgment referred to and relied upon by Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, the learned counsel for the respondents rendered in Writ Petition No.303/16 decided on 31.03.2016, it was held that petitioners therein who sought cancellation of the Education Package are not aggrieved. The findings were recorded in view of the averments made in that petition, their personal interest and loss likely to be sustained by them. Considering the petitions of those who are Ex-Ministers and political workers, we are of the view that in case of revisiting the Education Package these petitioners will not suffer any loss, hence, are not aggrieved, especially so, when it has been categorically stated by Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, the learned counsel for the respondents that Government has no intention to cancel the Education Package which was sanctioned vide notification dated 29.06.2015 rather the intention of the Government is to make up the deficiency and to fulfill the requirements of the institutions already established and judge the necessity of the institutions which have been established in pursuance of the decision taken by the earlier Government. Be that as it may, as the other petitions have been filed by the students and their parents and right of education though has not expressly been mentioned in the Interim Constitution Act, 1974, but it has nexus with right to life, therefore, they are aggrieved persons and their petitions are maintainable. The argument of Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents that petitions are liable to be dismissed for having been filed in violation of Rule 32(2) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984 has been considered in light of case law referred to and relied upon by him. After perusing the rules and relevant case law, we are of the opinion that in view of the latest judgment of the apex Court rendered in case titled Ahmed Nawaz Tanoli, Advocate v. Chairman Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council and others reported as (2016 SCR 960) this argument has no substance. Though the petitioners in all the petitions have not filed the attested copies of the impugned documents but their applications are on the record which disclose that they did apply for the purpose but copies have not been supplied to them by the concerned authorities. The attested copies of some of the necessary documents however, have been filed later on and the requirement has been complied with. As stated above, Cabinet decision and notifications issued in pursuance thereof are admitted documents, therefore, legality of the same can be judged notwithstanding the fact that attested copies of the same have not been appended with the petitions. The apex Court in the above referred judgment, at page 977 in para 9 has approved the same view, which is reproduced for ready reference:- The other authorities referred to and relied upon by Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents in this regard have distinguishable facts because in those cases petitioners therein had not applied for issuance of certified copies or failed to produce the proof regarding filing of applications for attested copies, hence, need not to be discussed separately. The argument of Barrister Humayun Nawaz Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners that as the Legislative Assembly has approved the package, therefore, after its approval the Government/Cabinet is not vested with any authority to undo the same is devoid of any force. The approval of the budget by the Legislative Assembly is requirement of Constitution as is visualized by Section 38 of the Interim Constitution Act, 1974, which provides that the Government shall, in respect of every financial year, cause to be laid before the Assembly a statement of the estimated receipts and expenditure for that year, to be called as annual budget. If the budget is passed by Legislative Assembly then it is to be authenticated by the signature of the President. A careful consideration of Section 38 reveals that approval of the budget has not the force of an Ordinance issued under Section 41 of the Interim Constitution Act, 1974, or an Act passed by the Legislative Assembly rather it is mere an approval of estimated receipts and expenditure for coming financial year. Now the question remains as to whether decision taken by the outgoing- Government can be reviewed or undone by the successor Government? Rule 23 of the Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Rules of Business, 1985 mentions the cases to be brought before the Cabinet. Under clause "E" of the afore-stated Rules the cabinet is empowered to consider the cases involving vital political, economic and administrative policies and the cases which a Minister considers important enough for reference to the Cabinet can be considered by the Cabinet, therefore, it cannot be said that a decision made by the Cabinet earlier cannot be revisited. The controversy has been narrow down by the statement of Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, the learned counsel for the respondents made at the bar that Government has no intention to cancel the Education Package approved vide notification dated 29.06.2015 whereby 700 million for Fiscal Year 2015-16 has been allocated for the purpose of implementation, improvement, upgradation of the educational facilities in Azad Jammu and Kashmir rather the Government intends to act upon clause B(i)(ii)(iii) of the said notification. As the intention of the Government is clear that they do not want to cancel the Education Package in toto rather implementation on the Education Package has been postponed for the reasons listed in the minutes of the report of the Cabinet Committee, therefore, we are of the view that Government/ Cabinet cannot be restricted from taking steps for good governance. Even otherwise, under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, it is commanded that whereby. any central Act or Regulation, a power to issue notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws is conferred, then that power includes, a power exercisable, in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any) to add to, amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws so issued. We may mentioned here that for achieving the target of good governance there must be continuity in the policies of the Governments which have been framed for the betterment of the people. Mere change of the regime may not affect the policies made for betterment of the people which will result in anarchy and bad governance and will also cause serious damage to the democracy and welfare of the people. It is well settled that convenience/Public Good welfare of the people are main objects of democratic set up and if any scheme is launched or program is approved then the cancellation of the same must be for genuine reasons and should be in the public interest by eliminating the every impression of change of person or Government. It must be ensured that entire system of development and governance should have credibility in the eyes of the people especially those who are poor, marginalized or living in backward areas. It is only then, we will be able to develop our county. The contention of Barrister Humayun Nawaz, the learned Advocate for the petitioners that after the judgments of this Court as well as apex Court the Cabinet/Government has no authority to undo the Education Package, in our considered view, is misconceived. This Court while deciding the Muhammad Akhter's, case vide judgment and order dated 31-3-2016 dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioners therein in view of the averments made in the petition were not aggrieved. This Court while deciding the lis/controversy regarding the project/policies of the Government will not sit over the wisdom of the Government. In this regard, case titled Wattan Party and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others, [PLD 2013 SC 167] was relied. In paras Nos.7 and 8 of the said case, it was observed as under:- "

7. We are afraid that at the instance of petitioners in order to expedite the progress of the project, we cannot assume the functions of policy making or determining the priorities of various development projects in the country, which are the exclusive domain and functions of the Federal and Provincial Government, as the case may be, who have their own ministries, departments, commissions and consultants, etc. for policy making, determining the priorities of various development projects and its implementation. It is pertinent to mention here that under the scheme of the Constitution having its structure based on trichotomy of power amongst its different organs i.e. Legislature, executive and judiciary, each of its organs has to work and exercise its authority strictly within its mandate, without encroaching upon or usurping the jurisdiction/functions of any other organ or the State.

8. From the bare reading of the Constitution, particularly, Articles 29 and 38 of Chapter 2, Part-II relating to principles of policy, it is evident that policies are to be made by respective Federal and Provincial Governments and all decisions regarding their implementation are also to be taken by them on the basis of determined priorities of different projects and availability of financial resources at their disposal. Obliviously, this exercise cannot be ordinarily interfered with by this Court by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, unless shown to be mala fide or in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution to every citizen of this Country, thereby affecting the interest of public at large." In the case titled Farzand Ali and others v. Province of West Pakistan, [PLD 1970 SC 98], the apex Court of Pakistan has opined that in the matter of policy/decision the Govt. is the best judge and is not possible for the Court to sit on the judgment or the action of the Govt. If from materials disclosed it is not appeared that action has been taken in colorable exercise or is an abuse of powers then Court will refuse the interference. It was further opined by the learned Court that it must be left to the Govt. itself to decide and take policies/decisions. In case titled Syed Muhammad Arif and others v. University of Balochistan and others, (PLD 2006 SC 564) the apex Court of Pakistan again took the same view and held that Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to take the role of policy maker in the garb of interpretation. In the cases of Dossani Travels (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Messrs Travels Shop (Pvt.) Ltd and others (PLD 2014 SC 1) and Messrs Al-Raham Travels and Tours (Pvt.), Ltd. and others v. Ministry of Religious Affairs, Haj, Zakat and Ushr through Secretary and others (2011 SCMR 1621), it was observed that a policy can be judicially reviewed only if it is found; in conflict with any provision of law, in violation of any fundamental right, arbitrary or was made/employed to give benefit to a person or group of persons with mala fide intent. Moreover, a policy can be held invalid if not approved by the authority under any law or if lacks legal sanction as is held in Muhammad Nadeem Arif and others v. Inspector General of Police Punjab, Lahore and others, [2010 PLC (CS) 924]. The contention of Barrister Humayun Nawaz, the learned Advocate for the petitioners that more than five thousands students have been admitted in the institutions on both sides i.e. Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools, therefore, their vested right cannot be taken back is correct and it is also admitted by the other side. However, as we have observed in the earlier part of the judgment that Govt. has not cancelled the Education Package rather revisiting of the package or postponement of its implementation is ordered for the betterment of the students as some institutions have been pointed out by Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, learned Advocate for the respondents, where staff appointed is not up to the mark, therefore, it is also in the interest of students that proper staff should be provided in those institution. However, while revisiting the Education Policy the Government has also shown its intention to shift all the students to the nearest institutions without obtaining any additional fee etc., hence, interest of students has been properly, considered by the respondents. The contention of Barrister Humayun Nawaz Khan, the learned Advocate for the petitioners that bogus figures have been given by the bureaucracy/Secretaries of the respective departments for revisiting Education Package because earlier in their recommendations the required number of posts vis-a-vis to the posts shown for revisiting was lessor. We have noticed material discrepancy between the recommendations and proposals, however, this is a question of fact which require detailed probe and investigation, therefore, it cannot be resolved in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The next contention of Barrister Humayun Nawaz, the learned Advocate for the petitioners that Court has protected Education Package, therefore, proceeding for revisiting is unconstitutional. We have gone through the judgment of the apex Court in Muhammad Akhter's case reported as 2016 SCR

883. The apex Court observed that the notifications impugned therein have been issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department. The relevant observations have been recorded in para 7, as under:- "The petitioners have themselves brought on record the notifications (Annexure "PB" and "PC") which according to their nature and subject are identical, only difference is, one is issued by the Secretariat Elementary and Secondary Education and the other is issued by the Secretariat Higher Education, therefore, the relevant portion which is common in both the notifications is reproduced as under:- The underlined phrases of the above reproduced notifications clearly speaks that the requirement of detailed scrutiny of the proposals has been fulfilled." As observed earlier that Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan made statement at the bar that Govt. has no intention to cancel the Education Package as a whole rather steps shall be taken for enforcement of the policy in letter and spirit, therefore, in view of this statement no further deliberation is required on this point. The contention of Barrister Humayun Nawaz Khan, the learned Advocate for the petitioners that posts were duly created but could not be filled in by the Government at the relevant time due to stay order issued by this Court is supported from the record. The stay order was issued in a case titled Raja Muhammad Farooq Haider Khan and others v. Azad Govt. and others, whereby, respondents were restrained from making the appointment. Moreover, it is in our notice that restrictions were placed during the process of Election in Azad Jammu and Kashmir on appointments, therefore, the posts created through the Education Package could not be filled in time. So far as the contention of Barrister Humayun Nawaz Khan, the learned Advocate for the petitioners that earlier the same Secretaries and Officers of the Education Department provided figures data on the basis of which upgradation of institutions were made and notified and after change of the Government they have shown bogus figures of the shortage of staff is concerned, we have already made observation that a question of fact which require thorough probe and investigation cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. We are unable to hold that which of the figures is correct and how much staff is required. The decision is, therefore, left open for the authority. However, we may quote few lines from the address of the founder of Pakistan, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who while addressing the civil officers in Peshawar advised them as follows:- "The services are the backbone of the State. Governments are formed. Governments are defeated. Prime Ministers come and go, ministers come and go, but you stay on, therefore, there is a very great responsibility placed on your shoulders. You should have no hand in supporting this political party or that political party, this political leader or that political leader this is not your business. Whichever government is formed according to the Constitution and who ever happens to be the prime minister or minister, coming into power in the ordinary course, your duty is only to serve that government loyally and morally but, at the same time, fearlessly, maintaining your high reputation, your prestige, your honour and the integrity or your service. If you start with that determination, your will make a great contribution to the building up of Pakistan of our conceptions and our dream a glorious State and one of the greatest nations in the world. While impressing this upon you, I wish also to take the opportunity of impressing upon our leaders and politicians in the same way, that if they ever try to interfere with you and bring political pressure to bear upon you, which leads to nothing but corruption, bribery and nepotism-which is a horrible disease and for which not only your province but others too are suffering-if they try to interfere with you in this way, I say they are doing nothing but disservice to Pakistan........" The apex Court of Pakistan in a case titled Zahid Akhtar v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Local Govt. and Rural Development Lahore and 2 others, [PLD 1995 SC 530], has observed as under:- "We need not stress here that a tamed and subservient bureaucracy can neither be helpful to Government nor it is expected to inspire public confidence in the administration. Good governance is largely dependent on an upright, honest and strong bureaucracy. Therefore, mere submission to the will of superior is not a commendable trait in a bureaucrat. Elected representatives placed as incharge of administrative departments of Government are not expected to carry with them a deep insight in the complexities of administration. The duty of a bureaucrat, therefore, is, to apprise these elected representatives the nicety of administration and provide them correct guidance in discharge of their functions in accordance with the law. Succumbing to each and every order or direction of such elected functionaries without bringing to their notice, the legal infirmities in such orders/directions may sometimes amount to an act of indiscretion on the part of bureaucrats which may not be justifiable on the plane of hierarchical discipline. It hardly needs to be mentioned that a Government servant is expected to comply only those orders/directions of his superior which are legal and within his competence. Compliance of an illegal or an incompetent direction/order can neither be justified on the plea that it came from a superior authority not it could be defended on the ground that its non-compliance would have exposed the concerned Government servant to the risk of disciplinary action." In view of above, bureaucracy is bound to ensure that Constitution and Rules of Business are not violated. They should withstand the political pressure for good governance and the supremacy of law, otherwise target of good governance could not be achieved. We are of the view that all the upgraded institutions should not be de-notified in one go rather it is enjoined upon the respondents to take up each and every case separately and only thereafter should pass an order for de-gradation etc. In a case titled Gohar Masood and others v. Secretary Health Department and others, [2001 SCMR 1128], the appointments of employees of the Health Department in Punjab were de-notified in pursuance of some Cabinet decision. The matter went in appeal before the apex Court of Pakistan and it was observed by the apex Court that decision cannot be taken in a rolled-up manner rather each and every case should have been taken up separately. The observations of the apex Court are recorded in para 6 of the report, as under:-- "Be that as it may and without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, which necessitates inquiry in each and every case individually and not in a rolled-up manner before passing the termination orders, it appears appropriate that in each case the competent authority should issue a show cause notice stating therein, with particularity, the grounds for proposed termination within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of show cause notices, each appellant shall furnish reply with liberty to raise all pleas available to him under law. The competent authority, on receipt of replies, shall finally dispose of all these cases individually on merits and in accordance with law within three weeks thereafter through a speaking order, copy of which shall be sent to all concerned. In the event of a favorable decision, all qualified persons shall be entitled to reinstatement with full back benefits. In cases of those not found eligible or qualified to be retained in service they would be entitled to pursue their remedies before the appropriate Service Tribunal after complying with the requirement of departmental appeal/representation there against." The upshot of the above discussion is that all the petitions are dismissed for having no substance. We hold that Government is empowered to frame any policy or take decision and is also entitled to revisit the same in public interest, however, we direct the Govt. to take up each and every case separately and not in a rolled-up manner while revisiting the Education Package. No order as to costs. MWA/33(AJK(HC) Petitions dismisse