2023 PLP 58 (SCMR)
Chaudhary MUNAWAR AHMED and others — Petitioners Versus HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION through Chairman Higher Education Commission, Islamabad and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2023 PLP 58 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial, Sajjad Ali Shah and Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Chaudhary MUNAWAR AHMED and others — Petitioners Versus HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION through Chairman Higher Education Commission, Islamabad and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Educational institution |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2023 PLP 58 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Educational institution as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2023 PLP 58 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial, Sajjad Ali Shah and Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2023 PLP 58 (SCMR) (Chaudhary MUNAWAR AHMED and others — Petitioners Versus HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION through Chairman Higher Education Commission, Islamabad and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Ali Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 2411-L of 2019).
- Shehryar Kasuri, Advocate Supreme Court (video link from Lahore) for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 2617-L of 2019 and others).
- Sahibzada Ahmed Raza Qasuri, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 3480 of 2019).
- Malik Mateeullah, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (video link from Lahore) (in C.P. No. 3492 of 2019).
- Sultan Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court (video link from Lahore) (in C.P. No. 3168-L of 2019).
- Sajid Ijaz Hotiani, Advocate Supreme Court for HEC.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 03.07.2019 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in W.Ps. Nos. 872/17, 37349/17, 82086/17, 1243/17, 46298/17, 57113/17, 59525/17, 67652/17, 68304/17, 71964/17, 75390/17, 87325/17, 97314/17, 102735/17, 129834/18, 154090/18, 154295/18, 154567-L/18, 157634/18, 176904/18, 193992/18, 216188/18, 220633/18, 231076/18, 238815/18, 244708/18, 250545/18, 22576/19, 23679/19, 13427/17, 21746/17, 30613/17, 27955/17, 32050/17, 67315/17, 37325/17, 67287/17, 67654/17, 154094/17, 220551/18, 220601/18, 45841/17, 176904/18, 231076/18, 23679/19, 872/17, 68304/17, 4243/17, 13427/17, 21746/17, 27955/17, 30613/17, 32050/17, 37325/17, 37349/17, 67287/17, 67315/17, 75390/17, 82686/17, 87325/17, 102735/17, 154094/18, 154295/18, 154567/18, 157034/18, 220531/18 and 231076/18)
Sub-campuses of universities set up outside the territory of their charter
According to the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (HEC) such campuses were illegal but the only measure which the HEC could effectively undertake was to issue alerts, and that the HEC had not received any cooperation from the Federal Government nor from the Provincial Government in respect of sub-campuses that were operating within their territories
Supreme Court observed that the maintenance of uniform standards of education and the effective monitoring of such standards and curriculum by the HEC was essential for safeguarding the future of education of the youth of the country, and that in such respect, the Court endorsed all lawful acts taken by the HEC
Supreme Court directed the Provincial Government as well as the Federal Government to render their fullest cooperation in enforcing such measures and standards
Petitions were disposed of. Yasir Nawaz and others v. Higher Education Commission and others PLD 2021 SC 745 ref. Sultan Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court (video link from Lahore) (in C.P. No. 3168-L of 2019). Nayyab Gardezi, D.A.G. for Federation. Qasim Chohan, Additional A.G. for the Punjab. Fauzi Zafar, Additional A.G. for Sindh. Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Additional A.G. for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Niazullah Niazi, A.G. ICT for ICT. M. Ayaz Sawati, Additional P.G. for Balochistan. Sajid Ijaz Hotiani, Advocate Supreme Court for HEC.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.
We have heard the parties at length. The question in issue, namely, the setting up of sub campuses by a university outside the territory of its charter has been dealt by us in our judgment reported as Yasir Nawaz and others v. Higher Education Commission and others (PLD 2021 SC 745).
2. We notice that the impugned judgment by a learned Full Bench of the Lahore High Court has also adopted the same line of reasoning and has thereby approved the conditions laid down by the HEC for regularizing and concluding the activities of the Preston University in the Province of Punjab through its alleged sub-campus. According to the concise statement filed by the Government of Sindh, the statutory charter of the Preston University does not envisage the setting up of campuses out side the Province. The concise statement filed by the HEC informs that the alleged sub-campus of the said university was setup initially as a Tuition Centre and that the setting up of the sub-campus has not been authorised by the Board of Governors of the said university. In this respect, the HEC has been issuing alerts from time to time to the university's sub-campus at Lahore about its illegal status. However, rather than cooperating with the HEC the university has resisted efforts at inspection and has also been complicit in arranging attacks by students on the offices of the HEC.
3. With respect to the reference made to the NAB no action has been taken against the petitioners. Presently that is an academic issue before us.
4. Consequently, in the light of our afore-noted judgment, the facts of the case, we find that the impugned judgment of the learned High Court has arrived at the correct conclusion and there is no ground for interference therewith at all.
5. During the hearing of the case, it has transpired that certain universities established in different parts of the country are maintaining sub-campuses outside the territory of their charter. According to the HEC such campuses are illegal. The learned counsel for the HEC informs that the only measure which the HEC can effectively undertake is to issue alerts. However, as vested interests are involved, the cooperation of the Provincial Government and the Federal Government is required to enforce the law governing the standards of higher education which the HEC monitors. In this respect the HEC has not received any cooperation from the Federal Government nor from the Government of KP in respect of sub-campuses that are operating within their territories.
6. We consider that the maintenance of uniform standards of education and the effective monitoring of such standards and curriculum by the HEC is essential for safeguarding the future of education of the youth of our country. In this respect, the Court endorses the all lawful acts taken by the HEC and directs the Provincial Government as well as the Federal Government to render their fullest cooperation in enforcing such measures and standards.
7. With the foregoing observations these petitions are disposed of. MWA/M-64/SC Order accordingly.