1996SCMR341 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J.‑‑‑This order shall dispose of the instant petition by Rahimyar Khan College of Education, Rahimyar Khan and another as well as CPSLA No. KA/L/95, CPSL.A No.875/L/95, CPSLA No. 876/L/95 and CPSLA No. 902/L/95 filed by Islamia Law College, Bahawalpur, Ali Garh Commerce College, Rahimyar Khan, Islamia College for Education Bahawalpur and another, and Chohlistan College of Education, Bahawalpur respectively.

2. Dispute involved in these petition's' is with regard to the affiliation of the aforesaid colleges hereinafter referred to as the petitioners, with the Islamia University, Bahawalpur. The petitioners are imparting instructions in different fields. They were provisionary affiliate to the said University, which is one of the respondents in the said petitions. According to the University the petitioners were repeatedly asked to make good certain deficiencies, etc., so as to earn permanent affiliation but they did not do the needful. The Affiliation Committee of the University, therefore, recommended that their affiliation should not be further extended. Recommendation of the Committee was approved of by the Syndicate of the University with the result that their affiliation came to an end. Decision taken in this regard was challenged by the petitioners by taking appeals before the Senate of the University but without success. Ultimately, they invoiced the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, but that too did not yield the desired result. Hence the petitions before us.

3. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not heard before terminating their affiliation and, therefore, action taken against them offended against the rules of natural justice and called for interference by the superior Courts in exercise of their Constitutional jurisdiction.

4. It is not the plea of the petitioners that they were not summoned before extension of affiliation was refused to them. Therefore, if any of the petitioners did not appear before the Affiliation Committee, to explain its position, the defaulting petitioner is itself to blame, and the adverse decision taken by the University cannot be struck down for non‑observance of the principle of audi alteram partem.

5. Deputy Registrar of the University was present in Court during the hearing of the petitions in hand. When questioned, he informed us that the Affiliation Committee consists of the following gentlemen:‑ (i) Prof. Latif Mirza, Professor of Chemistry, Islamia University, Bahawalpur. (i) Dr. Muhammad Ashraf, Chairman, Economics Department, Islamia University, Bahawalpur. (iii) Dr. Muhammad Khan Malik, Chairman, Geography Department, Islamia University, Bahawalpur. (iv) Director of Education, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur. (v) Mr. Muhammad Waheed, Lecturer in Educational Training, Islamia University, Bahawalpur. (vi) Deputy Registrar, Islamia University, Bahawalpur. It would, therefore, appear that the Affiliation Committee is manned by highly qualified dignitaries. In the absence of any tangible proof, therefore, it cannot be said that their reports against the petitioners were opposed to facts. In any case, there is no allegation of mala fide against them. Thus, there is no good reason to find fault with the reports of the Affiliation Committee. 5‑A. As is evident from the judgment under challenge, the decision of the Affiliation Committee against the petitioners was concurred in by the Syndicate of the University. We were informed by the Deputy Registrar that Mr. Justice Muhammad Arif, now acting as Federal Law Secretary, is one of the members of the Syndicate Verdict of the Affiliation Committee, which was endorsed by the Syndicate, was also upheld by the Senate of the University. This demonstrates that the matter was thoroughly examined at different levels but, at no stage, the petitioners could show that they were not at fault. 5‑B. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the poor literacy rate of our country, it was not just and proper to stop educational institutions from disseminating knowledge in different spheres. There can be no cavil with the proposition that the citizens of this country should be enabled not only to become literate but also to improve their educational proficiency. It is, however, equally imperative that the institutions which come in this field, should play their role in a be‑fitting manner. Mere fleecing of people desirous to achieve excellence or providing them short‑cuts to obtain high degrees, without requisite knowledge, cannot be countenanced. Heavy responsibility, therefore, falls on the shoulders of the functionaries of the University to ensure that affiliation is granted to only such institutions as can deliver goods in a perfect and laudable manner. If any institution is found lacking in this behalf the University authorities will be justified in refusing affiliation thereto. It is discretionary with the University to grant or withhold affiliation and if discretion is exercised judiciously, it cannot be taken exception to by any one. A perusal of clause (n) of subsection (2) of section 25 read with section 34 of Islamia University Bahawalpur Act, 1975, would indicate that an institution has to satisfy several requirements to earn affiliation. It is the Syndicate of the University, which is competent to grant or refuse affiliation after obtaining report of the Affiliation Committee with regard to the fulfilment of the said requirements. Thus, if the Affiliation Committee had found that any of the requirements laid down in rule 34 of the said Act had not been fulfilled by the petitioners, and then on the basis of its report in this regard, the Syndicate had refused affiliation to the petitioners, the orders of the Syndicate in the matter did not suffer from any jurisdictional defect and would not warrant interference by the superior Courts in exercise of their constitutional jurisdiction.

6. It was not urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that the University could not direct the petitioners to remedy the defects or fulfil other requirements in terms of the provisions of section 34 of the said Act. Therefore, if the petitioners did not do as desired by the University, the petitioners should thank their stars instread of finding fault with the decision of the University which went against them. The petitioners could not claim affiliation as a matter of right and the University could legitimately refuse affiliation for the petitioners' failure to comply with their directives which were not opposed to the relevant provisions of law. In this connection, we would like to make reference to a case of Indian jurisdiction. In Unni Krishaan, J.P. and others etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. (AIR 1993 SC 2178), following observations were made by the Supreme' Court of India (in paragraph 169) to emphasize that a University should ensure compliance with conditions laid down for seeing affiliation and should not allow affiliation lightly:‑‑

"

169. We must, however, make it clear, and which is of crucial importance herein, that the right to establish an educational institution does not carry with it the right to recognition or the right to affiliation. I In St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat (1975) 1 SCR 173); (AIR 1974 SC 1389) it has been held uniformly by all the nine learned Judges that there is no fundamental right to affiliation. Ray, CJ., stated that this has been the consistent view of this Court'. They also recognised that recognition or affiliation is essential for a meaningful exercise of the right to establish and administer educational institutions. Recognition may be granted either by the Government or any, other authority or body empowered to accord recognition. Similarly, affiliation may be granted either by the University or any other academic or other body empowered to grant affiliation to other educational institutions

The institution has to seek such recognition or affiliation from the appropriate agency. Grant of recognition and/or affiliation is not a matter of course nor is it a formality. Admission to the privileges of a University is a power to be exercised with great care, keeping in view the interest of the general public and the nation. It is a matter of substantial significance. The private educational institutions merely supplement the effort of the State in educating the people, as explained above. It is not an independent activity. It is an activity supplemental to the principal activity carried on by the State. No private educational institution can survive or subsist without recognition and/or affiliation. The bodies which grant recognition and/or affiliation are the authorities of the State. In such a situation, it is obligatory in the interest of general public upon the authority granting recognition or affiliation to insist upon such conditions as are appropriate to ensure not only education of requisite standard but also fairness and equal treatment in the matter of students. Since the recognising/affiliating authority is the `State, it is under an obligation to impose such conditions as part of its duty

It cannot allow itself or its power and privileges to be used unfairly. The incidents attaching to the main activity attach, to supplemental activity as well. Affiliation/recognition is not there for anybody to get it gratis or unconditionally. In our opinion, no Government, authority or University is justified or is entitled to grant recognition/affiliation without imposing such conditions."

7. It would, therefore, appear that in the case before us, it was not only the right of the University but also its duty to make sure that the institutions, which have made the petitions in hand, satisfied necessary requirements for obtaining affiliation, and if they had failed to comply with those requirements, the University was justified to refuse to grant further or permanent affiliation to them.

8. In this view of the matter, no legitimate exception can be taken to the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court who dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners. Leave to appeal against his judgment is, accordingly, refused in all the petitions before us, and the petitions are dismissed. A.A./R‑276/S Leave refused,