1996 PLP 1169 (CLC)

(b) that the act of the respondent University of declaring the petitioner College as being de‑affiliated without giving an opportunity of being heard to it (sic) may kindly be declared‑as unlawful and contrary to the mandatory provisions of its law.; (c) that the respondent‑University may kindly be directed to act strictly in accordance with law, with regard to the matter of petitioner‑College."

3. The respondents have offered their comments. It was submitted by the University that provisional affiliation was indeed given to the petitioners but it was subject to certain conditions which they have miserably failed to comply with. The University Authorities, at their own visited the premises and pointed out certain drawbacks/defects in terms of section 34 of the Islamia University Bahawalpur Act, 1975 and requested the petitioners to make up these deficiencies and to fulfill the requirements of law but it had become customary with them not to deliberately comply with these requirements and ultimately, at the closing of the Educational Year, to come to the Court and to seek relief hiding their own shortcomings.

4. Rather lengthy arguments were addressed by both the sides. The record has equally been perused with the assistance of both the learned counsel. It was pointed out the learned counsel for the petitioners that it was manifest from the record that the respondents accorded provisional affiliation in the first instance, for the year 1989‑90 and then continued to do s9 for the ensuing year but when they applied for the current educational year, the respondents adopted an attitude not becoming of an esteemed institution like the Islamia University Bahawalpur and they continued to avoid accepting the genuine request of the petitioners at one pretext or the other. The performance of the petitioners colleges have been decidedly satisfactory and the institutions set up by tie petitioners were equally up to the mark. Provision of 4000 books in the Library in a place like Bahawalpur is indeed remarkable. Since the University had accorded affiliation for the year 1989‑90 and continued to do so till the current educational year, the petitioners admitted lot of students and imparted instructions to them and completed the course well in time with a genuine expectation that the University would be gracious enough to accord approval in view of its previous practice. If at all they had to decline the request, they ought to have done at the commencement of the academic session by rejection of their prayer only one and a half days before the commencement of the examination tantamounts to a sheer mockery and it has landed the petitioners as well as 170 students of both the institutions in the valley of dismay and frustration which is likely to sap their energies besides incurring heavy financial losses. It is equally a national loss if the academic year of such a sizeable number of students is wasted.

5. Learned counsel for the University, however, pointed out that although the intimation has been given to the petitioners by means of a letter dated 29‑12‑1994, it might have been received by them, as they alleged on 3‑1‑1995, nevertheless it was none on the faults of the University as neither they had applied for the affiliation for this year nor had they complied with the other conditions.

6. The stand taken up by the petitioners does not appear to be wholly unjustifiable. The Director of Education, Bahawalpur who happened to be a Member of the Affiliation Committee, vide his letter dated 4‑3‑1991 had protested against the indifferent attitude of the Islamia University Bahawalpur qua the request of the petitioners. The second and fourth paragraphs of his letter A shortly read as under: "Being a Member of the University Affiliation Committee the undersigned is well aware of the case under reference. After inspecting Bahawalpur Law College and checking its record etc. I am of the view that it is against the spirit of justice not to grant affiliation to such a newly well‑established Institution. As per Government policy we should fully encourage the establishment of the Organizations/Institutions in the Private Sector instead of blocking their progress and functioning through delaying tactics and red‑tapism. It is to be further pointed out that Bahawalpur Law College Bahawalpur has already been Registered by the Education Department and FEL A Students of this College have been permitted to appear in Annual F.E.L. Examination, 1990 alongwith the regular students of the University. According to the decision made by the Chancellors Committee on 24‑5‑1977, the affiliation to the College applying for it through the Director of Education be granted provisionally after inspection by the Affiliation Committee, pending formalities, if any, for final decision. "

7. It would be relevant to point out that yet another Member of the Affiliation Committee, namely, Barkat A. Chaudhry, Principal, Government S.A. College, Dera Nawab Sahib (Ahmedpur East) had also pointed out the improper attitude of the University towards the petitioners while dealing with the request for affiliation. The following observations at pages 1 and 2 of his letter appear to be most relevant which are reproduced as under: "So far as the so‑called objections are concerned, these should have been brought to my notice as a member of the Affiliation Committee. The action taken is without proper authority by which my privilege has been injured while at the time of inspection on I0‑10‑1990, all the Committee members felt satisfied that all the conditions of Affiliation had been fulfilled by the College and it deserved Provisional Affiliation. I feel sorry that the treatment given to the Bahawalpur Law College by the University is against the mission of the University and also against the spirit of justice. University Authorities sitting tight over the case for the last eighteen months shows its apathetic attitude and indirectly creates a bad impression of the University. The public opinion expressed in the local press, Bar Association, M.P.A. M.N.A. and prominent persons etc. have clouded the impression of the University." This clearly shows that proper attention has not been paid to the request of the petitioners. In this view of the matter, there seems to be no justification for restraining the students from taking the examination which is to commence w.e.f. 5‑1‑1995. It may, however, be pointed out that the petitioners have not exhausted the remedy provided in law and have straight away come to this Court by means of Constitutional petitions. As provided‑under section 38 of the Islamia University Bahawalpur Act, 1975, there is another forum available to them in the shape of University Senate to whom they can appeal within the given period. It is, therefore, ordered that if the petitioners so like they may file appeal before the Senate. It is further ordered that the respondents shall allow the candidates of the petitioners to appear in the LL.B. Examination provisionally and the declaration of the result shall, however, be subject to the decision of the appeal if filed by the petitioners before the Senate or any other legal remedy available to them. The provisional admission shall, of course, be subject to payment of the fees and dues in accordance with law. It is pertinent to point out that the University as well as the petitioners have not dealt with the matter with promptitude which it deserved. It is, therefore, directed that if the appeal is filed by the petitioners, it shall be disposed of as early as feasible so that the candidates, present and the prospective, may not remain in suspense. The University shall, however, decide the matter strictly in accordance with the law uninfluenced by this order. With these directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of. H.B.T./M‑2159/L Petitions disposed of.