2009 PLP 370 (YLR)

S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.

Brief facts of the case are; that the petitioner applied to the respondent University for B.Sc. (Civil Engineering Programme) on the basis of Self-finance Scheme on 8-9-2008 but the respondents refused to receive the said document for the reason that the Chief Minister of the Punjab has directed to abolish-the self-finance scheme. In view of the petitioner, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have acted illegally and unlawfully and be directed to receive form F-II from the petitioner and process the same in accordance with law and rules of the university. Further that the prospectus published by respondent No.1 for admission for the year 2008 certain seats were reserved for the purpose but now the respondents have issued the notification and given effect to the said policy retrospectively. Hence, the notification issued with retrospective effect is unconstitutional and illegal, which has deprived him unlawfully from the admission against the seats reserved for self-finance scheme. Since the University of the Punjab and University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore have received the application against the self-finance scheme while the petitioner is being discriminated which is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; that in fact there was no justification with the respondent to abolish the seats reserved on the basis of self-financing and the petitioner is liable to be exempted, therefore, prayed for issuance of direction to respondents to receive form-F-II for admission in B.Sc. Engineering against self-financing and to process the same in accordance with law.

2. Argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that constitutional interference in the matter relating to the breach and enforcement of fundamental rights of the people at large was always justified because enforcement of fundamental rights was the responsibility of the Government and the appropriate direction in the public interest in which the matter of the public importance relates can be issued; that the prospectus issued for classes for the year 2008 but the Chief Minister has not directed to the Baha-ud-Din Zakaria University, Multan to abolish the seat on self-financing basis because it was within the discretion of the respondents to continue. The petitioner was eligible to apply against the self-finance scheme in the faculty of university college of engineering and technology as advertised in the newspaper. The same policy was old one and the retrospective effect cannot be given because the respondents were bound according to advertisement made wherein the applications were also invited .till 12-9-2008. There was no justification with the respondents to notify on 2-9-2008 that the seats on the basis of self-finance scheme has been abolished; that the respondent university was not bound by the instructions of the Chief Minister. The prospectus issued also cannot be changed to violate the fundamental rights of the candidate.

3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on 7-8-2008 the Chief Minister directed to abolish the self finance scheme forthwith but this would effect to the on going programme till the students complete the same but in future it was directed not to allocate any seat under this scheme. In compliance with the direction of the Chief Minister the syndicate held meeting on 16-8-2008 and abolished the seats; that the matter relates to the policy of the Government of the Punjab, it was within the domain of policy maker and cannot be enquired into by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of the Court; that there is no violation of any rule or regulation, therefore, it cannot be said that it is violative of the Constitution; that the respondent university was directed in the letter No.SO (univ)-54/2008 to abolish the self-finance scheme. Although the respondents have to suffer financially despite they were bound to comply with the direction issued and the syndicate also in meeting passed the resolution accordingly and issued notification on 2-9-2008 and that since it is policy issued by the Government and the respondents have no discretion to not comply with the same.

4. Heard. The abolition of the seats on self-finance scheme is in compliance with the direction of the Chief Minister. The syndicate in meeting also approved the same and issued notification on 2-9-2008 whereas the date fixed for receipt of application was 12-9-2008 and in the circumstances have not given the retrospective effect. The petitioner claims admission mainly on the ground that once seats were advertised the respondents were bound to receive applications and to process the same because denial to receive the application would amount to violation of his fundamental rights. It is not understandable if any vested right of the petitioner has been taken away although he was taken by surprise along with all other candidates. This Court has no jurisdiction to direct the educational institution to make change or not to change policies. The old policy has been changed and the instructions issued by the Chief Minister, Punjab, has been approved by the syndicate for abolition of the self-financing scheme and if any of the institutions in the Punjab is continuing the petitioner cannot compel to the respondent university to toe the line of those who are continuing in their educational institution. The authorized authority can change the policy. Since no vested interest has accrued, therefore, it cannot be said that the same has been taken away. The learned counsel for the petitioner also have claimed that the Government of the Punjab has been made party and if the Government has directed through Chief Minister to deprive the petitioner from the admission in the self-financing scheme can be restrained not to take measures or to issue the direction to the institutions in violation of Constitution of Pakistan while I am of the view that this Court is not having any power to direct for formulation of the policy or to change the same. The syndicate has also approved to the instructions issued by the Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any violation of vested right of the petitioner calling for interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. M.H./A-163/L Petition dismissed.