2000 PLP 2029 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 31st March, 2000. Islamia University, Bahawalpur, through a Press release, dated 14th December, 1999 announced the Schedule of B.A., B.Sc. Examination. The detail of which is given in Annexure‑D. According to it the examinations are going to commence from 11th April, 2000.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the said Schedule, the petitioner has filed present Constitutional petition with a prayer that a direction to respondent No.2 be issued to postpone the date of said examination and fix them in the end of May, 2000. It is submitted in the petition that the academic year will complete on 30th April, 2000 and thereafter 2/3 weeks will take for preparation of examination as has been held previously in the years 1996, 1998 and 1999 and also by Bahaud Din Zakria University, Multan.

3. Vide order, dated 7th March, 2000 respondent No.2 was directed to submit report and parawise comments within 10 days, which was accordingly done on 21st of March, 2000. The learned Legal Adviser, Islamia University was also directed to appear at limine stage.

4. Mr. M.M. Bhatti, Advocate, has entered appearance on behalf of respondent/University. Both the learned counsel .have been heard at length, this case, therefore, is being decided as a notice case.

5. According to the averments of petition, the petitioner is a regular student of B.A. in Government Sadiq Egerton College, Bahawalpur; he has deposited his annual fee for the academic year from May, 1999 to April, 2000 against Roll No.579 and according to him the academic year of his class starts from 1st May, 1999 and completes on 30th April, 2000, but without completing the academic year, the examinations are being held by the University in April i.e. from 11th April instead of May or June. This action of the respondent is alleged to be illegal based on mala fide against law and Rules laid down by the Islamia University and further that the Schedule of Annual Examination previously held, had ,not been taken into consideratio4 and that by the action of the respondent, the petitioner has been dealt with discriminately and his fundamental rights have also been violated.

6. On the other hand, the respondent in parawise comment has* submitted that according to the Calendar of University the term of academic year is 1st May to 30th April. The learned counsel for respondent has drawn my attention to Annexure "R‑I", the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:‑‑ "

2. Examination for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts (Pass Course) shall he held at such places as may be determined by the Syndicate twice a year. beginning in April or on such other date as may he fixed by the Syndicate and in September or on such other date as may be fixed by the Syndicate every year. Every candidate shall have the option to appear in the first time in the Examination or in the Second Examination or both but unless otherwise eligible he shall offer all the subjects when he takes the examination for the first time. " ‑ Perusal of parawise comments reveals that Intermediate Examination ~by Bahawalpur Board is being held on 6th May, 2000 and will continue for one and half month and if in any violation of the provisions quoted above the examination is held after the Intermediate Examination, after the centres are vacated by the Board, then the result will be announced somewhere in October and the admission for M.A./M.Sc. classes and all other Post Graduate classes start in the month of September. In this way the students will not be able to have admission in Post‑Graduate classes in the University also in the Punjab University and thus, a precious year of bona fide students will be lost. It is further submitted in parawise comments that the students who are to appear in the examination have been released in the month of March and no class was held in the month of March or April. It is. however, submitted that the Schedule of examination has been announced in strict compliance of the Rules and Calendar.

7. During the arguments the main contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the Schedule announced by the respondent is in‑ clear contravention of the Calendar of University and also with the previous practice opted by the respondent. I do not agree with him as rightly explained by the learned counsel for respondent that in the previous years the examination could not be held in the month of April as provided under Rules. Further that the Intermediate Examination is being held on 6th May, 2000 and it would continue for about one and half month and in case the prayer of petitioner is allowed then B.A., B.Sc., Examination would be possible after the centres are found vacant and in that case the result will possibly be announced somewhere in October.

8. The fixation of date for the examination by the University is a policy ‑otter as held by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case P` 2;amir Ahmad Khan v. Government of Pakistan and another 1978 SCMR 327 that: "the decision taken falls within the realm of policy making, and in all such cases orders made must conform to the policy decision of the Government. In view of this fact it was not possible to subscribe to the proposition that a writ of mandamus would lie against the licensing authority so as to have the effect of defeating the policy competently made by the Federal Government." 9.I am further of the view that the High Court has no jurisdiction to I disturb the Schedule of any Institution, which is its own prerogative to fix, the same as per their convenience and taking in view the administrative E problems i.e. regarding availability of examination centre and Examiners. The date of the examination cannot, in any case, be extended on the grievance of an individual.

10. It is a condition precedent for the maintainability of the writ petition that the petitioner is to point out any violation committed by the respondent C under the Rules and Regulations by which they are being governed. Since the learned counsel has failed to point out any such violation of Rules or Regulations, hence issuance of writ would amount to in reference with the internal autonomy and functioning of the University. It is primarily‑ a domestic affair as the fixation of date and announcement of Schedule of examination is purely an internal arrangement. Such a dispute can more properly be dealt with by, the Administration of the University and should C not ordinarily be taken to the Law Courts. Reliance can be placed on Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another v. Ali Mir 1984 SCMR 433.

11. The other contention of the learned counsel for petitioner has also no force as the previous practice adopted by the respondent does not create any vested right to the petitioner to compel the respondent to follow the same. No violation of the Rules and Regulations is made by the respondent. As held by this Court in case Ghulam Mustafa v. Chairman, Board of Intermediate and others 1998 CLC 432 the right must be based on law, therefore, in the absence of any law, the petitioner has no vested right and E this writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that no rule/law having been violated by the respondent necessitating issuing of writ. In these circumstances issuing of writ would amount to an interference with the internal autonomy and functioning of the University.

12. The present Schedule, as mentioned above, is also in the interest of the students/candidates as the examination must be held within prescribed period so as to save academic year and precious time of. the students than an individual that is why only one student has filed petition for postponement of the examination, therefore, I am inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner at the cost of the student community‑at‑large. Even otherwise, the writ petition is not maintainable.

13. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition is I dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑150/L Petition dismissed.