1988 PLP 510 (CLC)

‑‑‑R. 92 (iv)‑‑Educational Institutions‑‑Admission‑‑Words and Phrases‑‑Word "teacher" connotation of‑‑Teacher employed in privately run educational institutions having nowhere been excluded from definition of word "teacher"‑‑Such teachers would be entitled to same concession for purposes of admission of their children as children of teachers employed in Government institutions‑‑Subsequent clarification issued by a Government functionary that only children of Government employed teacher could benefit for purpose of admission would be of no effect when a right had already been accrued in favour of petitioner‑‑Children of teachers of both categories for such like purposes would be entitled to same concession.‑‑[Educational institutions‑‑Words and phrases]. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Educational institutions‑‑Admission‑‑Petitioner, could not be denied right of admission to reserved seats for children of teachers, merely on the ground that she is the daughter of a teacher employed in a privately, run educational institution‑‑Concerned educational institution was directed by High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction to consider cases of petitioner and respondent on merits.‑ [Educational institutions]. Mansoor‑ur‑Rehman Khan Afridi for Petitioner. Altaf Muhammad Khan for the State. Ijaz Hussain Batalvi for Respondent No.2. The petitioner, Miss Rizwana Ilyas, has moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that decision of respondent No.l ignoring her for admission in the college may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the petitioner passed her F.Sc. examination held in the year 1987 and secured 452 marks under Roll No.4052 from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and was placed in 2nd Division. The father of the petitioner Mr. Ilyas Mahmood is the Principal of Aizar K . G . and Secondary School, Gulberg, Lahore. Respondent No.l announced the admission policy whereby 12 seats were reserved for the children of the teachers. The petitioner being the daughter of above‑referred teacher applied for admission in the next class in the college of the respondent No.l. However, the respondent on 20‑9‑1987 pasted the list of the candidates on the Notice Board who were allowed admission in the college. To the dismay of the petitioner, her name did not figure amongst candidates who were allowed admission in the college. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 who secured 446 marks, admittedly less than the marks of the petitioner, was allowed admission on the basis that she is the daughter of a teacher.

3. On 5‑10‑1987, respondent No.l was directed to submit a report with parawise comments and in compliance thereof the said respondent has submitted the requisite report alongwith parawise comments which has been placed on record. The precise contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is established on record that the petitioner's father is a teacher arid that she was entitled to be admitted in the college of respondent No.l, in view of the policy decision laid down by the Government of the Punjab. Learned counsel stated that as per the policy letter bearing No.SO (Coll) 7‑6/84, dated 2‑10‑1986, Government of the Punjab, Education Departement, the expression 'teacher' has been defined. In sub‑para. (2) of para (II1) it is stated that:‑ "Teachers mean all the teachers from Primary to the University level. " Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon this sub‑para (2) of para (III) of the above‑referred policy decision. He states that case of the petitioner is covered by the definition of the expression 'teacher'. However, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that father of the petitioner is principal of a privately‑owned Educational Institution and, therefore, he is not included within the definition of 'teacher' as mentioned in sub‑para (2) of para (III) of the Policy issued by the Government. In reply to this, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the decision of the Provincial Government vide Annexure 'A', the certificate issued by the Director of Education (S), Lahore Division, Lahore, dated 27‑9‑1987, Mr. Ilyas Mahmood, father of the petitioner, is the Principal of Aizar K.G. and Secondary School, Gulberg, Lahore and that the said school is run by a registered body which is recognized by the Education Department, Government of the Punjab. It is further notified that the institution is affiliated to the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education. Lahore. In the end of the said certificate it was certified that the children of Mr. Ilyas Mahmood are eligible to enjoy the same concession as those of the teachers in Government service for purpose of admission in any institution. Learned counsel for the respondent when confronted to this certificate produced and relied upon by the petitioner vide Annexure 'A' at page 6 of the petitioner, he has nothing to say except that the father of the petitioner is not a Government teacher and as such he cannot be given the benefit of the policy statement of the Government. Mr. Ijaz Hussain Batalvi the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that it is established that the seats have been reserved for the children of the teachers who are the Government Servants. He urged that the petitioner is admittedly not the daughter of Government teacher. He maintained that respondent No.2 has, therefore, correctly been admitted in the college, ignoring the case of the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the Director of Education Department was not at all competent to issue any statement on the subject. He urged that the said statement may be ignored for all practical purposes. At any rate, the learned counsel contended that the certificate vide Annexure 'A' cannot be given the status of instructions issued by the Department. I am afraid I cannot agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent for the reason that the certificate has been issued by no less a Government Functionary than the Director of the Education Department of Lahore Division. Further the policy decision taken by the Government, referred to above, does not draw any clear distinction between the children of the teachers employed by the Government in i their Educational Institutions from the children of the teachers employed in other Educational Institutions being run and owned by the private bodies duly recognized and registered by the Government. Thus, in my considered view, the policy decision is applicable for the purpose of admission of the children of the teachers employed in the privately‑owned Educational Institution duly registered and recognized by the Government. Thus, the case of the petitioner is covered by the policy decision referred to above. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner passed her Intermediate Examination. Admittedly from Government Degree College, Baghbanpura, Lahore, and as such in view of the decision of the Government vide No.S (Coll) 7‑6/84, Government of the Punjab, Education Department, dated 17‑9‑1986, the petitioner has a prior right of admission in the said college in her 3rd Year class. The students of other colleges of course can be admitted on merits, provided there is vacancy for such students. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner can get a seat in 3rd Year class in her own college as of right. Learned counsel heavily relied upon the policy letter No. So (Coll) 7‑6/84, Government of the Punjab, Education Department dated 21‑10‑1987 and submitted that the definition of the expression 'teacher' has been clarified so as to include the teachers who are in the service of the Education Department, Government of the Punjab. On the basis of this circular letter, the learned counsel stressed that father of respondent No.2 is alone a Government Servant within the meaning of this letter and that the case of the petitioner's father cannot be covered by the definition of teacher so given in the above‑said letter. Replying to the contention raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.2, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the circular letter produced and relied upon by respondent No. 2 is dated 21‑10‑1987 and that this clarification has been added just to give support to the case of respondent No.2. Otherwise, the declared policy statement of the Government on the subject was issued as back as 20‑7‑1987. He contended that the petitioner had accrued a right of admission in the college of respondent No.l on 20‑7‑1987 which right cannot be taken back by the subsequent explanatory letter issued with mala fide intention and with ulterior motive. It is next argued by the learned counsel that Mr. Zahoor Ahmad Professor Deputy Secretary Academic was not one of the Government Officials who participated in the deliberation for the final preparation and approval of the above‑referred policy decision. Learned counsel, therefore, stated that the above‑said Professor Zahoor Ahmad has no legal right whatsoever to improve upon the policy statement of the Government. Learned counsel has also relied upon rule 92 sub‑rule (iv) of the Punjab Education Code, Rules and Appendices, Third Edition and has stated that terms and conditions on which the teachers shall be employed by the management of the privately owned Educational Institutions shall not be in any way less beneficial than those offered to their counterparts in Government service. Learned counsel forcefully submitted that this rule provides same concessions to all the teachers who were employed in privately‑owned institutions which concessions are for the Government Teachers. There is considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subsequent clarification of the definition of the word 'teacher' had been added to the policy statement with a view to give support to the case of respondent No.2.‑ The fact remains, as observed earlier, that nowhere the expression teacher has been defined so as to exclude the case of the petitioner for admission in the college. The subsequent addition clarification by Professor Zahoor Ahmad, in my view, will not at all advance the case of respondent No.2 because on 21‑10‑1987 when the explanatory circular was issued, a right had already accrued in favour of the petitioner which right cannot be taken away by the subsequent clarification of the definition of 'teacher'. Even otherwise, I am of the view that for such like purposes the children of the teachers whether they are employed in privately run Educational Institutions or Government Institutions, shall have the same concessions. This view finds ample support from sub‑rule (iv) of rule 92 of the Punjab Education Code, Rules and Appendices, Third Edition, Chapter V. This aspect of the matter has not at all been considered by respondent No.l. The policy decision of the Government as well as the relevant rules contained in the Punjab Education Code are clear that the case of the petitioner and that of respondent No.2 is at par.

4. The upshot of the above discussion is that the petitioner cannot be denied the right of her admission in the Queen Marry College, Lahore merely on the ground that she is the daughter of a teacher employed in a privately run Educational Institution. Thus, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Direction is issued to respondent No.l to consider the cases of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 on merits and thereafter to decide strictly as to who is entitled to the admission in the College. A . A . /M‑534/L Petition accepted