2006 PLP 412 (SCMR)

RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.

Petitioners, having registered themselves as student for Ph.D. programme with respondent Institute of Business Administration, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court seeking following reliefs:-- "(1) To declare that the comprehensive examination scheduled to be held on 23-12-2002 being mala fide and discriminatory is illegal and of no effect. (1-a) To declare that the application of present and proposed grading plan other than old grade changed arbitrarily and unilaterally with retrospective effect without the approval of competent authority for conducting the comprehensive examination vide Anuexure "G", is illegal and of no effect. (2) To grant permanent injunction to restrain the respondent above named their officers, agents, attorney and all other persons acting through or under them and/or on their behalf from conducting the first part of the comprehensive examination as well as its second part to be announced/conducted later, on any subsequent occasion/date till finalization of their prescribed courses of study for Ph.D. programme and as well grading plan formally duly approved by the competent authority for all the students and till disposal of this petition. (3) To quash the course i.e. `Seminar in Marketing', conducted by non-Ph.D. teacher, as the same has badly effected the grading of the bright students or their better future prospects. (4) To direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to appear in the comprehensive examination as and when held by the respondent."

2. Petitions were resisted on variety of grounds, including the fact that eligibility criteria for appearance at the comprehensive test was changed by Academic Board of the Institution whereby qualifying percentage of marks in courses was raised i.e. from 62% to 72% and above. It appears that during the pendency of the writ petitions before the High Court comprehensive examination scheduled to be held on 23-12-2002 was duly held, therefore, relief on this account was rendered infructuous. As regards the change of eligibility criteria, High Court found that it was a valid and lawful policy decision of the Academic Board of the Institute, which had been given the Charter of degree awarding Institute by the Provincial Assembly of Sindh through Institute of Business Administration Act, 1994 and that superior Courts, in exercise of their constitutional jurisdiction would not interfere with policy and academic decisions of educational institutions, of high excellence which fall within their domestic jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Sadiq v. University of Sindh PLD 1996 SC 182 laying down the proposition of law that High Court, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the decisions of a body incorporated under a statute for deciding whether a particular qualification should be recognized under the relevant statute.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that petitioners, having already enrolled themselves with respondent Institute and qualified in a good number of courses, cannot be detained from appearing at the examination in the remaining courses and to sit at the comprehensive examination, one of the essential requisites in the course of studies of Ph.D. degree. Stance of respondent Institute has been that once a policy decision has been taken by the Institute in the interest of higher standard of education, it would be applied with immediate effect and all Ph.D. students including the petitioners, were duly informed about the change of eligibility criteria before the holding of examination of such courses, therefore, petitioners cannot be allowed to say that they would not be governed by the changed criteria. Learned counsel for the respondents categorically stated that once the petitioners failed to secure the required qualifying marks in some of the papers, they could not be summoned by respondent Institute for appearance at remaining courses examinations, which they failed to clear earlier. The argument is premised on the circumstance that petitioners were the students of Ph.D. course, which obviously demands higher standard of education and par excellence proficiency. Learned counsel pertinently pointed out that if the petitioners were to be allowed to take the courses, which they failed to clear on earlier occasion, it would set at naught the entire discipline and the course of study prescribed by respondent Institute leading to serious hazards and a good deal of complications.

4. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and scanning the record as well as going through the impugned judgment of the High Court, we are persuaded to accept the stance taken by respondent Institute, which is a statutory body created for teaching business administration and related fields with complete authority to prescribe course of study to be conducted by it and to hold examinations and award/confer degrees, diplomas, certificates and other academic distinctions to and on persons who have been admitted to and have passed its examinations under prescribed conditions. We are not inclined to hold that despite petitioners' failure to achieve the required target prescribed under statutory rules of the respondent Institute they should be permitted to sit in the Comprehensive Test as it would neither be fair nor just or equitable to interfere into affairs falling into is exclusive domain of the respondents. Moreover, action impugned is supported by a lawful authority vested in Academic Board of the Institute and petitioners do not appear to have been singled out, therefore, there is no room for regulating their business by this Court.

5. Resultantly, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. H.B.T./A-266/SC??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions dismissed.