2010 PLP 2048 (YLR)

SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.

Appellant has called in question order dated 31-10-2007 passed in Writ Petition No.13166 of 2006 on the ground that accreditation is granted to the institutions and not to the students who are being imparted education in such institutions. The matter was referred to a committee, which was not constituted in accordance with law and the dictum of law laid down in the case of Muhammad Sadiq and others v. University of Sindh and another (PLD 1996 SC 182) has not been followed. Lastly the impugned judgment of the learned Judge in Chamber was attacked on the ground that order was passed on the basis of concurrence while Legal Advisor of Pakistan Engineering Council has never concurred.

2. The respondents have contended that the approval to Rachna College was provisional from 31-10-2007 to October 2010, one year has lapsed while the college is imparting education in the second year on the basis of provisional approval and at this stage, interference in the provisional approval will not only adversely affect the future of the students but will be an -unhealthy approach. While defending the impugned order, it is contended that the appellant has participated in the proceedings before the panel of six experts nominated by the Court. The report of the experts is unanimous and it is unexceptionable.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and record perused.

4. It is denied on behalf of the appellant that their counsel had concurred for the report by experts for the purpose of decision of the writ petition. It is evident from the record that the consent of the Legal Advisor for the appellant was recorded by the Court in its order. The affidavit of the learned counsel contrary to the record of the Court has no value. Court proceedings have always a precedence over the affidavit of the counsel. Any material placed on record, which negates the Court proceedings, has no value and it cannot be considered. Reference in this regard can be made to the case of Fayyaz Hussan v. Akbar Hussain and others (2004 SCMR 964). Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the procedure adopted by the Court for provisional accreditation to Rachna College of Engineering, Gujranwala is not permissible, under Pakistan Engineering Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2006. Learned counsel added that a commission of inquiry under section 30 of the Ordinance No.IX of 2006, comprises of a person qualified to be a Judge of High Court, a professional engineer nominated by the Federal Government; and a professional engineer nominated by the Council, but the learned Court appointed the panel of six experts ignoring section 30 of the Ordinance, 2006.

5. We are not convinced with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant as the panel of six experts was nominated by the Court with the consent of the parties. Party when persuades a Court to adopt a procedure for resolution of dispute, such party is debarred from challenging its validity on the ground of non-compliance of prescribed procedure. Reference in this regard can be made to the cases of Iqbal Ahmad Khan and another vs. Asif Ali Khan and 8 others (2007 CLC 1156) and Muhammad Hussain represented by Yasin and others v. Muhammad Taqi represented by Mst. Chiragh Bibi (1999 ( CLC 1371). The accreditation to the respondent college is provisional and half of the period has already lapsed. The college, which is now being run and managed by University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, U.E.T. after taking over its control, as per report of committee of experts, has improved the standard. Teaching and other facilities of UET, Lahore, are made available to the college, therefore, it will not be in the fitness of things to withdraw the accreditation in the midway. The appeal has no force and is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./P-6/L Appeal dismissed.