1997 PLP 2896 (MLD)

(iii) Library services are inadequate and library books on the subject fall too short to meet requirements of students. (iv) Laboratory facilities are inadequate and insufficient for practical s/training of B.Ed. students. (v) No facility of separate residence of teaching staff and Principal has been provided. (vi) Hostel accommodation has been provided to the girl students, but no permission to maintain the Girls Hostel has been obtained from the Competent Authority. (vii) Deficiencies previously pointed out have not been removed, Regulations/Rules of the University have not properly been followed. Overage students were admitted violating the admission regulations, despite it was assured that they would abide by all regulations, decisions and instructions of the University. (viii) The college has not been registered with the Education Department for 1995‑96. " In the same letter the petitioner was informed that the report of the Affiliation Committee will be sent to the Syndicate Committee which will hold its meeting on 18‑11‑1995 and an opportunity of personal hearing before Syndicate Committee was granted to the petitioner and the minutes of the meeting of the Committee (constituted by the Syndicate and delegated with the powers to decide the affiliation cases) held on 18‑11‑1995 in the Vice‑Chancellor's Office show that it was attended by the Vice‑Chancellor as its Chairman. Mr. Justice Mian Allah Nawaz, Judge, Lahore High Court, Lahore as member of the Syndicate, Professor Dr. Sheikh Abdul Rahim, Additional Secretary (Acad.), Education Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore also as member of the Committee and Rana Muhammad Arshad, Registrar of the University as Secretary of the Committee and the report of the Affiliation Committee dated 12‑8‑1995 was considered, the Patron of the College was also granted opportunity of hearing by the Committee as representative of the College out of Committee decided to defer the matter till 23‑12‑1995 requesting the Education Department to take decision of the registration of the petitioner‑College with the Education Department, Government of the Punjab within one month within the terms of Punjab Private Educational Institutions (Promotion and Regulation) Ordinance, 1984. Thereafter on the verbal request made by the Patron of the College in the abovesaid meeting dated 18‑11‑1995, the petitioner‑College was informed vide letter dated 2‑12‑1995 (Annexure‑M) that the first sentence of para. No.6 of the above said letter dated 22‑6‑1995 (Annexure‑J) may be considered as deleted meaning thereby that the College was allowed the admission of the students for the academic session 1995‑96 without obtaining fresh affiliation from the respondent‑University. However, soon thereafter on 23‑12‑1995 the Committee (constituted by the Syndicate to decide the affiliation cases) decided to refuse affiliation to the College for teaching of B. Ed classes, in view of the deficiencies pointed out by the Affiliation Committee including non-registration of the College with the Provincial Education Department for 1995‑

96. The decision was communicated to the College by the Deputy Registrar for Registrar vide Letter No:7025/Acad. dated 11‑1‑1996 (Annexure‑N). Aggrieved thereby the petitioner tiled an appeal before the Senate Committee and the Senate Committee vide its decision dated 9‑3‑1996 (Annexure‑S) communicated to the petitioner on 7‑4‑1996 rejected the petitioner's appeal, hence this Constitutional petition.

2. On 4‑8‑1996 report and parawise comments were called for from respondent No. l Islamia University, Bahawalpur and on the petitioner's application for the grant of temporary injunction (C.M. 1‑1906/BWP) a notice was issued to the respondent and meanwhile it was ordered that the petitioner college shall run accordingly. However, as the petitioner‑College had not been affiliated, therefore, admission forms of the students of the petitioner‑College to sit in the ensuing examination were not being accepted by the respondent University and the petitioner instituted Civil Miscellaneous No.3‑1996/BWP in this Constitutional petition for the grant of interim relief, on which on 24‑9‑1996 an order was passed that the same be heard alognwith the previous application (Civil Miscellaneous 1‑1996/BWP) as both the applications related to the same matter i.e. grant of interim relief. Today only the Civil Miscellaneous Nos. l‑1996/BWP and 3‑1996/BWP were fixed for hearing although the main writ petition itself was still at the initial and motion stage and after going through the abovesaid application, I was of the opinion that unless and until the main petition itself is heard, sought for relief of temporary injunction of directing the University to permit the students to sit in the examination was not appropriate and as the learned counsel for the petitioner showed his readiness to make his submissions on the main petition also, therefore, the office was directed to list the main petition today due to urgency of the matter.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the allegations of the respondent‑University of the College not having proper building and the defects pointed out as contained in the abovementioned letter dated 8‑11‑1995 (Annexure‑L) are incorrect, the college has spent more than 6 million rupees in constructing the building which meets the requirements of the College, College Staff and the students and the objection of the University that the College is not maintaining proper building is incorrect. It is submitted next that the minutes of the meeting dated 18‑11‑1995, mentioned above show that it was decided by the Syndicate Committee not to take any decision till the matter of the registration of the College is decided by the Education Department and without waiting for the decision of the Education Department in regard to the registration of the petitioner‑College, the final decision was taken by the syndicate Committee on 23‑12‑1995 refusing the affiliation of the College which shows the mala fide of the respondent‑University. It is also pointed out that it is a case of hardship because the students were given admission in the College under the permission of the respondent‑University as is apparent from the abovementioned letter dated 2‑12‑1995, the students have been attending the classes regularly and now all of a sudden due to the refusal by the University to affiliate the College for the academic year 1995‑96 the students are going to suffer an irreparable loss. On legal plane reference is made to section 34 of the Islamia University, Bahawalpur Act, 1975 to contend that there is no provision for the grant of provisional affiliation and once the affiliation is granted, the same is to be treated as having been granted permanently and the manner and style of the University of keeping all the educational institutions on tender hooks by giving only provisional affiliation on year to year basis is illegal and arbitrary and once the affiliation has been granted. then the procedure of withdrawal of the affiliation is to be followed and the procedure of renewal of the so‑called affiliation everN \car is not warranted, the procedure of withdrawal of affiliation is given in section 37 of the abovesaid Act and subsection (1) of section 37 lays down the condition in which the affiliation can be withdrawn and those situations do not exist in the present case for withdrawal of affiliation. The learned counsel has also argued that the University is bound to specify the time limit to give an opportunity to an Educational Institution to remove the defects if any before taking any action of refusal of affiliation or withdrawal of affiliation. In this regard the learned counsel has relied on subsection (2) of section 36 of the abovementioned Act.

4. On the other hand, while vehemently opposing the petition, the learned counsel for the respondent‑University has submitted that all the defects pointed out in the letter dated 8‑11‑1995 are factually correct. The petitioner‑College is not maintaining a separate building for imparting the education to the students of the College and in fact in the same premises 8 educational institutions are being run including the petitioner‑College which is contrary to the instructions and conditions laid down by the respondent‑University for the grant of affiliation. In this regard reference is also made to press advertisements in Daily Dastoor and Siyadat, (Annexures R‑1 and R‑2), attached with the parawise comments which show that in the same premises about then educational systems relating to different kinds of education are being run under the name and style of "Al- Farooq College and Schools System, Bahawalpur". It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent‑University that the petitioner‑College was warped again and again to have an exclusive separate building, that the College of education must be housed in a building exclusively located for the college having separate boundary wall, which is absolutely necessary to prevent undue interference in the activities of the College or students of other adjacent schools in the same premises and this defect was pointed out even in the last inspection visit made by the Affiliation Committee on 12‑8‑1995 but the petitioner failed to remove the defects and, therefore, non‑affiliation of the College is not arbitrary and is justified. The learned counsel for the petitioner leas also pointed out that the Education Department has refused to register the petitioner‑College with the Provincial Education Department for 1995‑96 and in regard to the allegation of hardship of students, it is contended by the learned counsel for the responder; that the University allowed the petitioner‑College to admit students on 2‑12‑1995 and refused to grant affiliation to the College within a short span of time on 23‑12‑1995 and as such the College admitted the students at his own risk and there was no delay on the part of the respondent University to make final decision of non‑affiliation of the petitioner with the respondent University. The learned counsel has also referred to Rahim far Khan College of Education through principal and another v. Islamia University of Bahawalpur through Vice‑Chancellor and 3 others (1996 SCMR 341) to contend that Syndicate of the University was competent to grant or refuse affiliation after obtaining report of affiliation Committee with regard to fulfilment of the requirements asked by the University and the orders of the University is not extending affiliation to such Colleges who according to the reports of the Affiliation Committee did not fulfil the requirements of affiliation did not suffer from any jurisdictional defect and would not warrant interference of Courts in exercise of their Constitutional jurisdiction.

5. The Affiliation Committee of the University is manned by highly qualified people and unless contrary is proved by some tangible proof, it cannot be said that their reports against the petitioner were opposed to facts. The decision of the Affiliation Committee against the petitioner was concurred in by the Syndicate Committee of the University which again as detained above consisted of highly qualified dignatories including a Judge of this Court which shows that the matter was thoroughly examined at different levels and the petitioner has also failed to show that the deficiencies pointed out by the Affiliation Committee in its report to the Syndicate Committee are not required in law to be fulfilled.

6. The Syndicate of the Islamia University Bahawalpur under section 25 of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act IV of 1975 is the executive body of the University and is empowered to take effective measures to raise the standards of teaching, research and other academic pursuits and under clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 25 it has the power to affiliate and disaffiliate colleges. Similarly section 34 lays down that any educational institution applying for affiliation to the University has to satisfy the University of several requirements enumerated therein to earn affiliation. The relevant subsections and clauses of section 34 for the purposes of disposal of this petition are reproduced below:‑

Affiliation. 34. (1) An educational institution applying for affiliation to the University shall make an application to the University and shall satisfy it, (a) that the educational institution is under the management of the Government or of a regularly constituted governing body; (c) that the strength and qualifications of the teaching and other staff, and the terms and conditions of their service, are adequate to make due provision for the courses of instruction, teaching or training to be undertaken by the educational institution; (e) that the building in which the educational institution is to be located is suitable, and that provision will be made, in conformity with the ' statutes and the Regulation for; (i) the residence of students, not residing with their parents or guardians, in the hostels established and maintained by the educational institution or in hostels or lodgings approved by it; and (f) that provisions has been made for a library and adequate library services; (g) that where affiliation is sought in any branch of experimental sciences, due arrangements have been made for imparting instruction in that branch of science in a properly equipped laboratory, museum and other places of practical work; (h) that due provision will, so far as circumstances may permit, be made for the residence of the Principal and members of the teaching staff in or near the college or place provided for the residence of students and (2) The application shall further contain an undertaking that after the educational institution is affiliated, the teaching staff shall possess such qualifications as are or may be prescribed. (3) The procedure to be followed in disposing of an application for the affiliation of an educational institution shall be such as may be prescribed. (4) The Syndicate may, on the recommendation of the Affiliation Committee, grant or refuse affiliation to an educational institution. Provided that affiliation shall not be refused unless the educational institution has been given an opportunity of making a representation against the proposed decision.

7. The abovementioned shows that the respondent‑University was within its lawful authority to ask the petitioner‑College to remove the deficiencies pointed out by the Affiliation Committee and on the same having not been removed the University had the lawful authority to refuse to affiliate the petitioner College for the year 1995‑

96. The provisional affiliation for the academic session 1994‑95 was granted to the College subject to certain terms and conditions as pointed out in letter dated 22‑6‑1992 and certain deficiencies were also pointed out, reproduced above, and for the purposes of considering the petitioner's application for the grant of affiliation of the academic session 1995‑96 the Affiliation Committee inspected the College again on 12‑8‑1995 and found that the deficiency pointed out previously had not been removed and on the deficiencies being pointed out as contained in letter dated 8‑11‑1995 it did not recommend the affiliation and An" the report of the Affiliation Committee the Syndicate Committee refused to grant the affiliation to the petitioner vide its impugned order, dated 23‑12‑1995, and the petitioner's appeal has also been rejected by the Senate of the University vide its decision dated 9‑3‑1996. No illegality in the impugned orders has been pointed out. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has already held that in view of the statutory provisions, referred above, of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur. Act IV of 1975 the syndicate is competent to grant or refuse affiliation after obtaining the report from Affiliation Committee and the orders of the respondent‑University in not extending affiliation do not suffer from any jurisdictional defect if they are based on the report of the Affiliation Committee of the non‑fulfilment of the requirements as contemplated by sections 25 and 34 of Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act, 1975. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Colleges cannot claim affiliation as a matter of right and the respondent university could legitimately refuse affiliation to Colleges on their failure to comply with its directives which were not opposed by the relevant provisions of law and the University had not only the right but also the duty to make sure that Institutions, which were seeking affiliation, satisfied necessary requirements for obtaining affiliation, and if they are unable to comply with their requirements, the university vas justified to refuse to grant further or permanent affiliation to them as in the instant, case I have gone through the deficiencies which were pointed out by the respondent‑University to the petitioner's College and I have also gone through the relevant provisions of section 34 of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act, 1975 and I find that the deficiencies pointed out and the directives issued by the respondent University were not opposed to the relevant provisions of the abovesaid Act and University was within its lawful right in refusing affiliation for the academic session 1995‑96 on being satisfied on the' report of the Affiliation Committee that the deficiencies pointed out earlier, while granting provisional affiliation for the academic session 1994‑95 had not been removed.

8. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the poor literacy rate of our country, it was not just and proper to stop educational institutions from disseminating knowledge in different sapphires. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the petition of an educational institution in the abovementioned authority has also dealt with this aspect of the matter and observed as follows;

"There can be no cavil with the proposition that the citizens of this country should be enabled not only to become literate but also to improve their educational proficiency. It is, however, equally imperative that the institutions which come in this field, should play their role in a be‑fitting manner. Mere fleecing of people desirous to achieve excellence or providing them short‑cuts to obtain high degrees, without requisite knowledge, cannot be countenanced. Heavy responsibility, therefore, falls on the shoulders of the functionaries of the University to ensure that affiliation is granted to only such institutions as can deliver goods a perfect and laudable manner. If any institution is found lacking in this behalf, the University authorities will be justified in refusing affiliation thereto. It is discretionary with the University to grant or withhold affiliation and if discretion is exercised judiciously, it cannot be taken exception to by any one. "

9. In this view of the matter I see no merit in this Constitutional petition which is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. A.A./A‑146/L Petition dismissed.