2003 PLP 344 (CLC)

Petitioner No. 1 in person. Miss Alia Fatima on behalf of Dr. A. Basit, Legal Advisor of the Punjab University. Date of hearing: 11th July, 2002. Brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the petitioners are already diploma holder in Forensic Medicine from Punjab University and are holders of different teaching posts in various medical institutions in Pakistan and were anxious to improve their professional qualifications. The Board of, studies in Medicine, University of the Punjab had considered the proposal of introduction of the course of M. Phil in the year 1985. The aforesaid Board sent its recommendation for approval to Vice‑Chancellor of the Punjab University. The Registrar of University notified the syallabi and courses of reading of the M. Phil (Forensic Medicine) vide Notification, dated 12‑12‑1987 and statute and regulations etc. relating to M. Phil was also notified vide Notification, dated 22‑12‑1987. The petitioners submitted applications for admission in the Punjab .University which was allowed by the respondent University. The petitioners joined the said course in different sessions of the said institution. The petitioners completed the course and were permitted to take part in M. Phil Examination by the University of Punjab and was declared successful vide Notification, dated 3‑12‑1990, 1‑1‑1992 and 9‑7‑1992 respectively. Similarly, petitioners Nos. 9 to 11 were granted admission by the University on 1‑11‑1991, 1‑11‑1992 and 1‑11‑1993 respectively. The petitioner No.9. alongwith another student having completed training course, submitted their applications for admission in Part I. For this purpose, they deposited the fee with the University of the Punjab. The Punjab University did not issue Roll Numbers to the petitioner No.9 and his co‑other student. The petitioner came to know that P.M.D.C, deputed Inspectors for inspection of Department of Forensic Medicine, K.E.M.C., Lahore on 23‑9‑1991 and submitted their reports to the Council and on the basis of aforesaid report, P.M.D.C. in its meeting held on 30th and 31st May, 1992 at Peshawar took a decision not to recognize the arrangements at the Department of Forensic Medicine, K.E. Medical College, Lahore for B qualification of M. Phil Examination. The petitioners being aggrieved filed representation before respondent No.5 who did not take any action can the representations of the petitioners. The petitioners being aggrieved filed this writ petition.

2. The petitioners submit that action of respondent No.3 is without awful authority and is based on mala fide. He further submits that the petition6rs had secured admission on the advertisement made by the C Punjab University qua admission in M. Phil Medicine. The petitioners had completed the course, therefore, principle of locus poenitentiae is attracted Punjab University has no authority to wriggle out from this situation. He further submits that action of the respondents is also in violation of departmental practice. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:‑‑‑ Pakistan through Secretary v. M. Himayatullah PLD 1969 SC 407 and Nazir Ahmad v. Pakistan and 11 others PLD 1970 SC

453. He further submits that impugned action of respondent No. 3 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and in derogation of earlier report. He further submits that action of respondent No.3 is mala fide as respondent No.3 wanted to support the institution situated in Karachi, therefore, the action of the respondents is without lawful authority. In support of his contention, he relied upon Rahimyar Khan College of Education's case PLJ 1981 Peshawar 55.

3. The learned counsel of respondent No.3 submits that the Writ petition is not maintainable as the Punjab University has no authority to admit the petitioner in the said course i.e. M. Phil Forensic Medicine unless and until, respondent No.3 had recognized the same under the provision of law. P.M.D.C. had reconfirmed his earlier decision in the. meeting held on 8/9‑10‑2001.

4. The learned counsel of .Punjab University submits that Punjab University had no objection to hold the examination of the petitioners in case respondent No.3 be directed to issue the recognization certificate to the Punjab University.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the petitioner No.1 and learned counsel of the respondents and perused the record myself.

6. It is settled principle of law that principle of locus poenitentiae is not attracted in the present case as per principle laid down by Jilal‑ud- Din's case PLD 1992 SC

207. It is also settled principle of law that affiliation recognization to Punjab University cannot be granted with respondent No.3 as of right. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the following judgments:‑‑‑ Rahimyar Khan College of Education v. Islamia University, Bahawalpur 1996 CLC 64, Noor Muhammad Khan v. Vice Chancellor, Gomal PLD 2001 SC 219 and Rahimyar Khan College's case 1996 SCMR

341. In case contents of writ petition and report and parawise comments of respondent No.3 are put in a juxtaposition, then it brings the case of the petitioner in the area of the disputed question of fact and this Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed question of fact in Constitutional jurisdiction as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ch. Muhammad Younus Khan's case (1993 SCMR 618). It is admitted fact that the petitioners filed representations before respondent No.5, who did not decide the same till date. It is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to decide the representations of citizens without fear, favour, nepotism and within reasonable time as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution read with section 24‑A of the General Clauses Act as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Messrs Airport Support Service's case 1998 SCMR 2268.

7. In this view of the matter, let a copy of writ petition be sent to respondent No.5 who is directed to decide the representations of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law preferably within 2 months after receiving the order of this Court after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioners and representatives of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and 6, in case, he had already not decided the same till date. The petitioners are directed to appear before respondent No. 5 in his office at 11‑00 a.m. on 22‑7‑2002 who is directed either to decide the representations of the petitioner himself or send the same to Competent Authority for its decision, who is also directed to decide the same in the terms of aforesaid direction of this Court. He is further directed to submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court within stipulated period.

8. Respondent No.3 is also directed to finalize the matter within three months after receiving the order of this Court keeping in view of hardship of the petitioner under hardship regulations in accordance with law. Respondent No.3 is also directed to submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court within stipulated period. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. H.B.T./K‑160/L Order accordingly.