2025 PLP 73 (MLD)

Dr.Khurshid Iqbal, J.

Owned and managed by the petitioner, D and K Ashraf School and College is imparting education upto Class-XII in North Waziristan district. Among others, the proforma respondents are studying in it. In 2019, the stakeholders of the institute requested the respondents to constitute their college as the centre of examination for its students. The request was acceded to. In 2021, the respondents were again requested for the purpose, but this time it could not be so constituted. In the current academic session, the respondents were yet again approached for the purpose. Nevertheless, the request was allegedly turned down without any justiciable reason. This compelled the petitioner to press into service the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.

2. We have heard Pir Inam Ullah Shah Advocate for the petitioner and scanned through the record.

3. The matter with regard to constitution of a place as a centre of examination is governed by Rule-3 of Chapter-XII of the Rules made under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1990. It vests discretion in the Chairman of the Board to constitute a place as a centre of examination under special circumstances on such terms as may be determined by him. Similarly, the matter with regard to the change of centre of examination is regulated by Chapter-XIV of the Rules ibid. This chapter provides for the circumstances and conditions to be satisfied for the change of centre of examination. Rule-2 thereof vests discretion in the Controller of Examinations to allow change of centre with the approval of the Chairman in exceptional circumstances. However, no real hardship or exceptional circumstance could be pointed out by the learned counsel representing the petitioner, to persuade us to indulge in the matter. Moreover, Rule-3 of this Chapter commands that an application for a change of centre shall be made on a prescribed form which shall be submitted through the person signing the admission form. Nevertheless, the applications dated 14.04.2023 and 17.05.2023 were made on a plain paper and not on the prescribed form. The said applications were moved to the Chairman of the Board by the parents of the students concerned. Those were not submitted through the person having signed the admission forms as required under the rules. At the time of making the applications for the change / restoration of centre of examination, Degree College Mirali had already been constituted as a centre of examination for the students of the college. Rule-6 makes it obligatory for each application to be accompanied by a fee of Rs.1000/-. The requirement of this rule, too, has not been satisfied. Besides, Rule-7 provides that the Controller shall have the power to reject an application for a change of centre without assigning any reason for his orders. It is, thus, clear that constitution of a place as a centre of examination is the privilege of the Board, which cannot he claimed as of right. The college in question is a private institute. Its examination hall has been shifted to the Government Degree College in the same district to ensure transparency in conducting the examination.

4. It is worth noting that suitability of a place for constitution as a centre of examination is purely internal matter of the Board which has absolute right of decision in such matter. This Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction would not substitute its findings with the one adopted by the Board after making assessment of the ground realities. In the case titled as "Khyber Medical University and others v. Aimal Khan and others" (PLD 2022 SC 92), it has been held that:

4. It has been time and again held by this Court that courts must sparingly interfere in the internal governance and affairs of educational institutions. It is simply prudent that the courts keep their hands off educational matters and avoid dislodging decisions of the university authorities, who possess technical expertise and experience of actual day to day workings of the educational institutions. Every university has the right to set out its disciplinary and other policies in accordance with law, and unless any such policy offends the fundamental rights of the students or violates any law, interference by the courts results in disrupting the smooth functioning and governance of the university. It is, therefore, best to leave the disciplinary, administrative and policy matters of the universities or educational institutions to the professional expertise of the people running them, unless of course there is a violation of any of the fundamental rights or any law.

5. This self-restraint by the courts in matter of educational institutions is based on the wisdom that academic freedom and institutional autonomy of the universities must be protected and safeguarded. Academic freedom is not merely liberty from restraints on thought, expression, and association in the university, but also that the university should have the freedom to make decisions about the educational matters including disciplinary matters. As "it is the business of a university to provide that atmosphere which is most conducive to speculation, experiment and creation. It is an atmosphere in which there prevail 'the four essential freedoms' of a university; who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught and who may be admitted to study.

5. Although, the facts of the above cited case pertain to an issue arisen in a University, but the principle laid down therein is that the Court should not interfere in the internal governance of an educational institution. This principle is attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. The constitution of an examination hall is the function of the respondents. We are of the view that the constitution of examination hall is the discretion of the respondents, which they should have a right to exercise in the manner as warranted, unless it infringes on the fundamental rights of the students. It has not been pinpointed as to what prejudice has been caused to the students by not constituting the college as the centre of examination.

6. In the above backdrop of the matter, we are fully convinced that the instant writ petition is without any force. It is, therefore, dismissed in limine. MQ/112/P. Petition dismissed.