Educational Institution

Briefly, petitioners appeared in MDCAT under admission process for MBBS/BDS (Session 2022-23) and were shown successful in the tentative list, but after an abrupt change in eligibility criteria their names were excluded from the final merit list, resulting in denial of admission

Held: The decision taken by the executive committee seemed to be arbitrary and discriminatory

Medical education was a crucial part of a nation's healthcare system and ensuring equal access to quality medical education was essential for addressing healthcare disparities and providing healthcare professionals in underserved regions

Secondly, province of Balochistan already faced significant healthcare challenges, including limited access to medical facilities and higher rates of diseases and the shortage of healthcare professional exacerbated these disparities and hindered effort to improve healthcare outcomes

Instead of honoring the request of the Provincial Cabinet of Balochistan and granting provisional admission to the affected students at Makran medical college, delayed the decision which amounted depriving the students of Balochistan from getting medical education

The said colleges had already been recognized and a number of students were getting their education in the said institutions that too without any complaint and the petitioners would face difficulties after 2/3 years and meanwhile there was sufficient time to address these deficiencies by the provincial government and college administration

Even otherwise, the deficiencies pointed out by the inspection team were of trivial nature and could be rectified within a couple of days as promised by the Vice Chancellor and Secretary Health

Respondents were directed to grant provisional admissions to the affected students mentioned therein

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was aggrieved of refusal of authorities to migrate his son from one Balochistan Residential College (BRC) to another near his residence, as the child was suffering from adjustment disorder - a mental health condition

Validity

Son of petitioner was student of 8thclass and for students of such age, it was quite natural to experience such adjustment challenges when they were away from their home and family

Such situation was not unique to the son of petitioner alone but was often encountered by many students who were placed in distant educational institutions

Adjustment disorders are typically short-term conditions that arise in response to specific stresses which are often resolved as the individual / student adapts to new environment and circumstances

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as adjustment disorder alone was not sufficient to justify migration of petitioner's son from one College to any other near residence of petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Briefly, the respondent was a Ph.D. scholar of the petitioner University who had submitted her thesis but her admission was cancelled; her departmental appeal, two writ petitions, and civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court were all dismissed, while her separate civil suit for declaration and injunction was initially dismissed by the Trial Court but later decreed by the Appellate Court directing restoration of her admission and consideration of her thesis

The issue in the present civil revision was "whether the Appellate Court could lawfully grant such relief despite the earlier adjudications by the High Court and the Supreme Court?"

Held: A comparative analysis of pleadings, affidavits, and documents from both the writ petitions and the civil suit revealed that the issues were directly and substantially the same

While procedural irregularities and unfairness were apparent on record, particularly from DW-01's cross-examination, the fact remained that the respondent's case had already been adjudicated conclusively by competent constitutional forums

High Court, sitting in revisional jurisdiction, could not override the authoritative pronouncements of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court

Judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court was set aside

Present civil revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Brief facts were that the petitioner secured admission in BS International Relations (Fall 2018) at the respondent university after submitting an online admission form in which he declared securing 443/950 marks, whereas his actual result was 443/1100, making him ineligible under the university's criteria, and his admission was cancelled though he continued attending classes due to procedural lapses

After a previous writ petition was treated as a representation which was decided against him, he filed the present petition challenging that decision

Issue requiring determination before the High Court was as to "whether the petitioner, having obtained admission through misrepresentation of academic marks and having continued his studies for several semesters, was entitled to constitutional relief against cancellation of admission under Article 199 of the Constitution"?

Held: Under constitutional jurisdiction, interfere in academic, disciplinary, or administrative policy matters of educational institutions, particularly where no violation of any fundamental or statutory right was established, was not warranted

The petitioner's own conduct was tainted with misrepresentation and concealment

In his admission form, he categorically declared that "The information furnished in the application form is correct and nothing has been concealed in this regard"

Moreover, all the attached documents i.e. Matric/ Intermediate/ Bachelor/Master/ MS/ MPhil/ equivalent results were complete, correct and meet the eligibility criteria as per advertisement

If the information provided or the documents attached were found deficient/incorrect/false/fake/or tampered at any stage, the university had the right to cancel the admission without any refund

Having voluntarily and consciously executed such an undertaking, the petitioner stood precluded, under the well-established doctrine of estoppel, from invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to seek protection against the very consequence that lawfully emanated from his own false declaration

The petitioner, regrettably, chose to begin his academic journey on a false foundation, and having done so, he could not later invoke equity to validate that which was void from inception

As regards the contention that the petitioner's continued attendance in classes and regular payment of fees created a vested right under the principle of locus poenitentiae, it sufficed to observe that an illegality could not ripen into legitimacy merely through the passage of time or by continued participation in an unlawful arrangement

No benefit could flow from a fraudulent or deceitful act

The petitioner, being the architect of his own wrong, could not claim equity or protection from the High Court

The equitable maxim "he who seeks equity must come with clean hands" squarely applied

A structure founded upon falsehood could not be sustained in law; therefore, any claim erected upon such a defective foundation must collapse under its own weight, and the petitioner alone must bear responsibility for the consequences of his own misconduct

Constitutional petition was devoid of merit and was dismissed, in circumstances.

Student/candidate (Plaintiff) who appeared and passed Matriculation examination filed a suit challenged quashing of his result vide two letters ('impugned letters') issued by the Disciplinary Committee of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Faisalabad (BISE Faisalabad )

Trial Court dismissed suit of the plaintiff/ student

Appellate / District Court set-aside judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court declaring the impugned letters null and void on basis that proceedings of Disciplinary Committee were not as per law, however, referred the matter to same (Disciplinary Committee ) and directed that inquiry against the student / candidate would be pending and was to be carried out in accordance with law

Validity

It was not disputed that petitioner's (student's) result was notified in 1997 , however, the provisions of R.18 of Chapter V of Faisalabad BISE's Calendar clearly stipulated that power to quash vested in the Chairman, but the respondent-Board had placed on the record no such order ( i.e. order to said effect having been passed by the Chairman)

Even the document exhibited by respondent, (defendant /Board), through which petitioner / plaintiff was eventually intimated about dismissal of his appeal had not been issued by the Chairman

When a thing is to be done in a manner provided under law, the same should be done in that manner and not otherwise

Thus, the Appellate / District Court erred in law as well as facts of the case while passing the impugned portion of judgment of remand resulting in miscarriage of justice

High Court set-aside the impugned portion of judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court, consequent whereof , the suit instituted by the petitioner stood decreed as prayed for

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Student/candidate who appeared and passed Matriculation examination filed a suit challenging quashing of his result vide two letters ('impugned letters') issued by the Disciplinary Committee of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Faisalabad (BISE Faisalabad )

Trial Court dismissed suit of the plaintiff /student

Appellate / District Court set-aside Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court declaring the impugned letters null and void on basis that proceedings of Disciplinary Committee were not as per law, however, remanded the matter to same (Disciplinary Committee) and directed that inquiry against the student / candidate would be pending and should be carried out in accordance with law

Validity

Remand cannot be ordered to improve the case of one party

Parties cannot be relegated to square one

When the complete evidence of the parties was available the Appellate Court should have decided the matter

Thus, the Appellate / District Court erred in law as well as facts of the case while passing the impugned portion of judgment of remand resulting in miscarriage of justice

High Court set-aside the impugned portion of judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court, consequent whereof , the suit instituted by the petitioner stood decreed as prayed for

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Student/candidate (plaintiff) who appeared and passed Matriculation examination filed a suit challenging quashing of his result vide two letters ('impugned letters') issued by the Disciplinary Committee of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Faisalabad (BISE Faisalabad )

Trial Court dismissed suit of the plaintiff /student

Appellate / District Court set-aside judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court declaring the impugned letters null and void on basis that proceedings of Disciplinary Committee were not as per law, however, referred the matter to same (Disciplinary Committee) and directed that inquiry against the student / candidate would be pending and same would be carried out in accordance with law

Held: Evidence adduced by the parties revealed that two persons, including Retired Assistant Controller, appearing as witness for respondent-Board during cross-examination had deposed to the effect that petitioner / plaintiff had appeared in the examination fulfilling all requirements without any complaint and was issued certificate rightly

Thus, said particular piece of evidence clearly reflected that respondent-Board had no case against the petitioner/ plaintiff on merits

On the other hand , all the witnesses produced by the petitioner / plaintiff stood the test of cross-examination and remained unscathed; no contradictions were found in their testimony , rather they remained firm with regard to the stance of the petitioner / plaintiff

There was not a single suggestion put to the petitioner / plaintiff during the cross-examination that he did not appear in the examination or that he procured the result card by employing unfair means

On the other hand , evidence led by the respondents -Board was full of material discrepancies

Defence witnesses, during their cross-examination , admitted the stance of the petitioner / plaintiff that he(plaintiff) appeared in the examination and passed it and certificate was issued to him and they (witnesses) did not say that petitioner/plaintiff procured certificate by using unlawful means

Courts below while passing impugned judgments and decrees ignored said piece(s) of evidence and committed non-reading and mis-reading of evidence and in such cases interference was permitted in revisonal jurisdiction of High Court

Thus, the Appellate / District Court erred in law as well as facts of the case while passing the impugned portion of judgment of remand resulting in miscarriage of justice

High Court set-aside the impugned portion of judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court, consequent whereof , the suit instituted by the petitioner stood decreed as prayed for

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioners applied for induction in the FCPS/MD/MS course against quota reserved for foreign seats for Post Graduate Residency Program

Change of Policy was made through a notification regarding non-consideration of marks of Matriculation (SSC) and Intermediate (HSSC) for the candidates, who had applied for foreign quota seats

Retrospective effect of such notification

Scope

Beneficial/earlier notification was in field at the time of advertisement containing the policy for induction in Postgraduate Residency Program and it was the terms of that notification that would govern the induction process

Amendment in the rules/policies cannot operate retrospectively for taking away the vested rights of the parties

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly

Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) had allocated 100 seats for medical college in question and High Court could not direct the PMDC to increase the allocation of seats for medical college as this was a policy decision which through their expertise and knowledge of the available resources in this scientific field they were best equipped to deal with and decide on

As per Rules of admission of medical college until the PMDC's portal was closed, the admissions were only provisional, thus, once the credentials of the student "AA" admitted in place of the petitioner stood verified within the given time frame, he was entitled to take the seat allocated for him in the MBBS course on the basis of his position in the merit list and the petitioner's provisional admission necessarily had to be cancelled

Petitioner's admission was provisional until 31st March and in that time student "AA", who was above her on the merit list and who initially had been denied admission based on the wrongful verification of his credentials, was able to have those credentials re-verified in time and as such he was entitled to reclaim his initially wrongfully declined admission to MBBS

Medical college was directed to repay the petitioner her admission fee while giving her liberty to approach the Karachi Medical and Dental College to take back her BDS seat, which she earlier vacated subject to its availability

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Non-completion of thesis of Ph.D Degree by the petitioner within prescribed time as required under Reglns.5.3 and 5.14(i) of Regulations of Examinations, 2001 (Regulations)

Petitioner attributed delay in completing the thesis to the respondent-University on account of not determining the topic and not appointing the supervisor

Contention of respondent University was that petitioner did not adhere to that statutory requirements of R. 5.31 of Examination Rules, 2018 (Rules) and did not submit re-defence of Ph.D. thesis before the Thesis Defence Committee (TDC) within time, thus Review Committee issued M.Phil Degree instead of Ph.D. Degree

Contention of the petitioner was that instead of giving him opportunity to re-appear before the TDC the letter of award of M.Phil Degree had been issued

Validity

Petitioner's defence that NUML had delayed the approval in the change of petitioner's topic for Ph.D thesis, was not tenable for the reason that he could not point out any provision of the Regulations, which required such changes to be approved by NUML

Petitioner did not submit his thesis for a re-defence before TDC within the deadline given by TDC, which caused NUML to decide not to issue him a Ph.D. Degree

Regulation 5.3 in Chapter-5 of the Regulations provided that the "total duration of Ph.D. Program is 3-8 years."

Contesting parties in unison submitted that Regln. 5.3 had been part of the Regulations right from the time when the same are approved by the Board of Governors of NUML

High Court cannot re-write Regulations of an educational institution which are approved by its Board of Governors

High Court, in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction, could also not give to the petitioner an exemption from the applicability of any of the said Regulations

If High Court was to issue a writ of mandamus directing NUML to permit the petitioner to submit his re-defence it would not be without violence to Regln. 5.3 ibid

High Court could not substitute its own opinion for that of NUML contained in the letter, because such like educational matters were best left to elite members of faculty, who possessed technical expertise and experience of actual day to day workings of the educational institutions

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

As a general rule, mandamus does not lie where there is another plain, speedy and adequate remedy available, whereas, office of the Ombudsman was yet vacant, thus, it would be futile exercise to approach the said office for implementations of the decision rendered by the Ombudsman

Petitioner was an aggrieved person, thus, constitutional petition for issuance of writ of mandamus was maintainable.

Respondent-university instead of complying with the order of Ombudsman preferred appeal before the President, which was dismissed

Petitioner filed a writ of mandamus for implementation of orders of Ombudsman and President, whereas, respondent filed a writ of certiorari against such orders

Validity

Petitioner had been meted out with mala-fide treatment and bias, prior to passing any order qua dropping her from 1st semester as no notice was issued to her, thus, she well within time filed an application for freezing the semester to her extent, which was not further processed by the university authorities

Depriving a gold medalist student from further education was an act of mal-administration, thus, the order was not in accordance with law

Decision of the AJ&K Ombudsman was completely in line with the scheme of law and norms of justice requiring no indulgence at all

Where bad faith, ulterior motive or colourable exercise of power is oozing from the record, judicial audit is inherent in High Court in order to have a judicial review

Writ of mandamus filed by the petitioner was accepted by the High Court with a direction to implement the order of Ombudsman, which had attained finality, whereas the writ filed by the respondent/university in form of certiorari was dismissed being not maintainable and being hit by doctrine of laches.

Under the University Statute panel of 03 senior candidates was to be recommended by the Vice Chancellor to the Chancellor for consideration

No bar had been imposed by the Statute on the candidates for reconsideration and inserting their names in the fresh panel for the reason that they had already served for a term of 3 years against the post of Dean

Consideration of remaining Professors from seniority list excluding senior-most Professor, who had already served as Dean Faculty of Arts received no recognition from bare perusal of the Statute, thus, such like arbitrary and self-created criterion could not be allowed to substitute plain language of the Statute

Act of the Assembly could not oppose the Constitution, vis-à-vis rules made under the Act could not override the Act, likewise policy or for that matter any circular or practice could not be allowed to take a different approach which was not indicated in the Statute, thus, practice of the University Authority in the guise of accommodating all the employees from the seniority list was alien and ran counter to the Statute, which could not be approved and endorsed

Entire proceeding qua sending the panel against the post of Dean, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, was at odds with the Statute, thus, no relief was extended to petitioners, nor the panel sent in deviation of Statute was endorsed

Two constitutional petitions were disposed of with a direction to the respondents to initiate the matter of appointment of Dean in terms of criteria laid down in the Statute, and third constitutional petition, in which administrative orders had been challenged, was dismissed as the same had become a past and closed transaction.

Petitioner by filing the instant constitutional petition is seeking direction against the respondents (Pakistan Medical Commission) to consider her for admission in MBBS for Sessions 2023-24 against the seats reserved for refugees of 1947 settled in Pakistan

Record revealed that total 1421 candidates applied but the petitioner failed to apply within due date, and the Committee prepared merit list of the successful candidates

Pakistan Medical Commission issued direction to reopen the admission portal only for those candidates who have appeared in re-conduct of MDCAT 2023 in KPK and Sindh and include those candidates who passed the re-conduct MDCAT only and in said regard a public notice was issued by the Joint Admission Committee to apply the re-conduct MDCAT candidates only according to the UHS but the petitioner did not appear in re-conduct MDCAT and applied only against the re-conduct MDCAT category

As per Policy of Pakistan Medical Commission and according to relevant Conditions [No. 3(a) and 5(v)] of the advertisement all the admission process will be made through online portal for transparency

Courts are required to exercise utmost restraint in matters relating to policies, disciplines and other academic affairs of educational institutions

Refusing to interference is a rule and deviation therefrom is an exception which can only be justified on the basis of clear and undisputed violation of the law

The reluctance of the Courts to interfere with academic affairs is based on the foundational principle that the academicians and educational institutions are the best judges because formulating policies and eligibility criteria falls within their exclusive domain

The standards prescribed and set out in the regulations relating to academic bodies, determination of eligibility to pursue studies and other related policies are not generally open to judicial review unless they can be clearly shown to contravene the law or to be shockingly unreasonable or perverse

Courts are not equipped nor have the capacity to deal with academic matters, let alone substituting opinions formed by the experts or professionals

Courts of law are under legal obligations to implement the laws holding the field and decide the disputes in line with the scheme of law

How could the University be blamed for the delayed approach of the petitioner and laziness exhibited

Law helps vigilant not indolent

In order to make the admission process fair and transparent, the respondent / Joint Admission Committee made the process online and it was the responsibility of the petitioner to complete the admission process well in time as per instruction given by the Committee but the petitioner failed to process the application in the given time, whereas, 1421 other candidates applied for the admission and completed their admission process duly in accordance with the schedule given in the advertisement

Petitioner neither completed her application in time nor appeared in the re-conduct MDCAT but she applied only against the re-conduct MDCAT category which was contrary to law and against the rights of the other successful candidates

Furthermore, no plausible explanation or reason had been given by the petitioner for not completing the online admission process in time, however, when she failed to fulfill the requisite criteria given in the advertisement, she filed the present petition just to linger on the admission process of the qualified candidates

Writ petition, being not maintainable, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Writ petition under Art. 44 of the Interim Constitution, 1974, cannot be entertained quo judicial review of the matter relating to policy discipline and other academic affairs of educational institutions unless: (i) Any gross violation of law/regulations is pointed out and is oozing from the record; (ii) Proceedings ex-facie militate against the constitutionally fundamental guaranteed rights.

In the affairs of admission and examination in educational institutions, the concerned authorities are vested with the powers and jurisdiction to lay down the eligibility criteria in their own rules, regulations, or prospectus

They are independent to follow their own policy for admission, and in other affairs, therefore, the academic, administrative, and disciplinary autonomy of a university must be respected

Interference by the courts in the admission policy would give rise to glitches for the said institutions to administer the matters harmoniously and efficiently

Educational institutions are competent to manage their own affairs without any outside intervention from executive or judicial organs unless they contravene or disregard the compass of their authority or act in breach of applicable statutes or admission policies as laid down in the prospectus.

Allegations of fraud or fabricated documents are treated with the utmost seriousness by the Supreme Court, and those found to be engaging in such a practice are dealt with accordingly

Institutions imparting medical or dental education are not merely seen as service providers but also as custodians of the nation's health and the primary training centers for its doctors and healthcare professionals

With such a heavy onus cast on institutions that impart education in medicine, it is logical that such institutions be given a freehand to regulate discipline and regulate those who offend such discipline, as the institutions see fit

Every university has the right to set out its disciplinary and other policies in accordance with law, and unless any such policy offends the fundamental rights of the students or violates any law, interference by the courts would result in disrupting the smooth functioning and governance of the said universities

University sent the mark sheet of respondent/student to the relevant Board of Education twice, and on each occasion, the said mark sheets were termed as fake/ bogus and fabricated

Moreover while furnishing his mark sheet the respondent tendered an affidavit at the time of his admission mentioning that all documents submitted by him along with application form were genuine and correct and no false document had been submitted; that if any document/information was found to be false, incorrect or otherwise his admission was liable to cancelled

It is on the basis of this surety that the respondent was granted provisional admission in the MBBS program and since his mark sheet turned out to be fake and fabricated the University was quite justified in cancelling his admission

Respondent was not entitled for admission in the MBBS program for the academic year 2022-2023, which he managed to secure on the basis of a fake/forged and bogus mark sheet

Civil petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and allowed accordingly.

Standards prescribed and set out in the regulations relating to academic bodies, determination of eligibility to pursue studies and other related policies are generally not open to judicial review unless they can be clearly shown to contravene the law or to be shockingly unreasonable or perverse.

In the affairs of admission and examination in educational institutions, the concerned authorities are vested with the powers and jurisdiction to lay down the eligibility criteria in their own rules, regulations, or prospectus

They are independent to follow their own policy for admission, and in other affairs, therefore, the academic, administrative, and disciplinary autonomy of a university must be respected

Interference by the courts in the admission policy would give rise to glitches for the said institutions to administer the matters harmoniously and efficiently

Educational institutions are competent to manage their own affairs without any outside intervention from executive or judicial organs unless they contravene or disregard the compass of their authority or act in breach of applicable statutes or admission policies as laid down in the prospectus.

Petitioner participated in the test conducted by Higher Education Commission (HEC) and when he could not achieve the desired result, he turned around and challenged the same on the grounds that the eligibility criteria was vague in nature and discriminatory

Doctrine of estoppel by conduct of the petitioner was fully applicable, therefore, after participating in the entry test conducted by HEC, he could not challenge the same on the ground of discrimination

Each Province is empowered to make its own decision regarding the subjects that fall within their respective domain in accordance with its own circumstances

Decision by one Province regarding any matter cannot be cited as grounds for discrimination if another Province does not make the same decision

Courts should generally refrain from interfering in policy decisions taken by statutory bodies and authorities tasked with running the affairs of educational institutions and students, like the HEC as it needstechnical and professional expertise

Courts are neither equipped with such expertise nor possess the relevant experience to interfere in such matters

In the absence of un-rebuttable material on record regarding mala fide, the Court should not conduct judicial review of an administrative order/action or intervene with the said order of executive authority which otherwise was free from any illegality or jurisdictional clause

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Petitioners / candidates were admitted to medical college under the decision made by competent authorities, which included Provincial Admission Committee and Pakistan Medical and Dental Council

Such bodies were tasked with overseeing and regulating admission in the manner consistent with fairness and equity in educational process

Decision of such bodies to admit petitioners / candidates, despite their failure to meet standard requirement, presumably took into account exceptional circumstances or policy changes intended to broaden access to medical education

Once an individual is admitted to an educational program by a competent authority, such individual should not be penalized nor should his rights be curtailed arbitrarily

High Court directed respondents / authorities to release result of petitioners / candidates as there was no occasion to withhold the results

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

It was not the function of High Court to make interference in policy making domain of universities / institutions or even the executive unless it was violative of law or statutory rules and regulations

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as admission policy in question incorporated in prospectus of medical college based on Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2022, was neither violative of any statutory law or rules or regulations nor was it discriminatory

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Candidates/students earlier filed constitutional petition against imposition of fine against them for late submission of thesis and the same was disposed of referring the matter to the Examination Discipline Committee ('the Committee')

Committee, after deliberations, waived off the fine of the candidates/students, but recommended imposition of the same on the Khyber Institute of Education (Educational Institution) concluding that the delay had occurred on the part of the Director of the Educational Institution

Petitioner (Principal Educational Institution) invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court against the imposition of said fine

Contention of the respondents(University Authorities) was that the said recommendation was made in view of the Notification No. 234/Acad-II dated 08-12-2015 vide which amendment was made in the Rule 22 ('Rule 22')relating to Annual Examination of the University of Peshawar

Validity

Rule 22 stipulated that thesis/report and award list had to be submitted to the Controller of Examination within six months from the last day of theory examination with fee, failing which the candidate would not be considered for merit positions

Minutes of the Committee revealed that award list was submitted to the Dealing Assistant of the Examination Centre, however, he failed to provide acknowledgement receipts to the Committee despite its repeated requests, which meant that the Committee was not provided any proof that the award list was submitted by the stipulated time to the Controller of Examination

While shifting the fine, neither any rule/regulation was referred/cited by the Committee, nor any other convincing reason was given in arriving at said recommendation

Rule 22 prescribed imposition of fine/penalty only upon the candidate(s) on late submission of thesis/report along with award list to the Controller of the Examination, whereas said rule did not provide imposition/shifting of such fine to the petitioner, being Educational Institution, especially when there was no acknowledgment receipt from the examiners to said effect

High Court struck down the impugned letters/notices, imposing fine upon the petitioner

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner/candidate sought establishment of new examination center for him on the plea that his father had enmity in the area where center assigned to him was located

Validity

There was a distinction between 'change of center of examination' and 'constituting a place as center of examination'

Former was governed by Chapter-XII, while the latter by Chapter-XIV of the Rules made under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1990

Center of examination could be changed for a student from one place to another, provided the latter was also a duly constituted center of examination

Such center could not be allowed to be changed from one place to another, if the latter was not so constituted at the time of such change

Seeking such change by petitioner/candidate amounted to seeking constitution of a place as center

Constituting an examination hall was the function of authorities, who may exercise the discretion in the manner as warranted under rules, which cannot be interfered with unless it has infringed on fundamental rights of students

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as petitioner/candidate failed to point out as to what prejudice was cased to him by not constituting his desired place as center of examination

There was no mala fide on the part of authorities for allocation of center to petitioner/candidate

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Proceedings for quashing of result were initiated on the basis of erasing and manipulating the marks beyond the period of limitation

Validity

Under Chapter-VI of the Calendar of the University of Punjab, 1998, the Syndicate has the jurisdiction to quash the result or withdraw the degree within three years from the date of declaration of result

Result of respondent was declared in 1992 but neither any proceedings regarding erasing or manipulation in the marks were initiated within the stipulated period against the respondent nor any departmental proceeding were initiated by the University against any delinquent official

Once the result gazette is issued, University is debarred to quash the result after the lapse of period of three years

Petitioner had failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity, misreading and non-reading of evidence in the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below and had also not identified any jurisdictional defect, therefore, the concurrent findings of fact were against the petitioner which did not call for any interference by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction

Civil Revision was dismissed accordingly.

MBBS and BDS Prospectus For Admission to Government Medical and Dental Institutions of Punjab issued by the University of Health Sciences, Lahore, for session 2002-23, Sr. No.5

Petitioner was denied admission solely on the ground that on the target date, he failed to produce all the original documents himself as was required under the MBBS and BDS Prospectus For Admission to Government Medical and Dental Institutions of Punjab issued by the University of Health Sciences, Lahore, for session 2022-23 ('the Prospectus') and instead his father presented photocopies of the required documents

In the prospectus, a detailed procedure and conditions of admission were enumerated

Serial No.5 of the procedure and conditions of admission deals with joining of selected candidates, and clause-I of Serial No. 5 clearly manifests that a candidate who is selected for admission shall be informed through short message service (SMS)/Email

In compliance of the said condition, the petitioner was informed through letter dated 21st March, 2023, which was actually letter dated 21st January, 2023 whereby target date was also wrongly mentioned as 24th January, 2022, which was actually 24th January, 2023

Said letter was dispatched on 25th January, 2023 and delivered on 26th January, 2023

SMS was also conveyed to the petitioner on 24th January, 2023 at 12:58 pm (as is evident from relevant page of the petition, which was not seriously refuted by the respondents (University of Health Sciences Lahore and Rawalpindi Medical University)

It was thus evident without any hint of doubt that the petitioner was informed at the last moment and apparently it was impossible for him to meet the requirements for admission

Apparently, there was no fault on the part of petitioner but he was penalized stringently

There is no cavil that ordinarily courts exercise restraint in interfering with the internal governance and affairs of the educational institutions and keep their hands-off the educational matters and avoid dislodging decision of the university authorities but this is not a rule of universal application though it may be followed generally

Petitioner had thus duly made his case for issuance of writ to the respondents

High Court directed respondents ( University of Health Sciences Lahore and Rawalpindi Medical University) to give admission to the petitioner in first year of MBBS sessions 2022-23

Constitutional petition was allowed , in circumstances

Petitioners/candidates were aggrieved of eligibility criteria determined for admissions to Medical College for Overseas Pakistanis and others

Validity

Classification for candidates who had studied abroad for a mere 2-year period, no matter where that may be, were considered to be at an academic advantage compared to candidates who had acquired their education in Pakistan

Such classification amounted to a damning indictment of the overall state of education in country

While a distinction might be drawn for purposes of admission between local Pakistanis and persons who are overseas Pakistanis, the latter genre cannot be broadened vide impugned classification in question merely on the basis of two-years of foreign education, so as to encompass persons who are Pakistani citizens and otherwise possess qualifications and thus preclude them from applying for general merit seats

High Court set aside classification in question as the same was unreasonable and could not be introduced in the prospectus as a device to put an otherwise eligible Pakistani citizen beyond the pale of consideration

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Courts must sparingly interfere in the affairs of academic institutions, therefore, it is best to leave the disciplinary, administrative and policy matters of educational institutions to the professional expertise of the people running them, unless of course there is a blatant violation of any of the fundamental rights or the law.

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.

Petitioners were students who were not awarded degrees by the university for not clearing examination in duration so fixed

Plea raised by petitioners was that they appeared in examination and were entitled to degree

Validity

Estoppel could not be used as sword rather it could be used as shield

Petitioners were allowed by college administration for appearing in examination on their own risk and cost and degree was to be awarded by university and not by college

University was to follow its own statutes and regulations where no such further extension was provided for failures

Petitioners failed to point out any violation of their rights or statute or regulations

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as petitioners remained unable to complete their studies for the award of degree

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioners (owners of an educational institution) were desirous that their educational institution be constituted as an examination center, but their request, in said regard, made at Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education ('the Board') was declined

Petitioners invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court praying for the passing of directions to the Respondents/Board to constitute their educational institution as an examination center

Contention of the petitioners was that the examination centre made by the Board at another village were at a long distance and would create problems for the students of locality especially for female students

Held, that as per the relevant the rules of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education ('the Rules') , the declaration of examination hall was a privilege of the Chairman of the Board

Application having been submitted to the Controller of the Board by the petitioners revealed that they had mentioned total 99 students of both IX and X Classes without mentioning the number of the female students ;and they did not assert that those students would suffer in case of going to the examination center in the school of another village

Total numbers of students, in the present case, did not appear to meet the target mentioned in R. 1(2) of the relevant Rules

Petitioners had not presented any documentary proof to show that earlier their institution had been declared as centre for the examination

High Court should not interfere in the internal governance of an educational institution and the constitution of an examination hall was the function of the respondents/ Authorities having the expertise, in such regard

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Petitioner was initially appointed as Manager (Admin & Finance) and was duly confirmed after satisfactorily completing his probation period

Order terminating the services of the petitioner under the subject "service no more required" was though argued to be in terms of the initial appointment letter, according to which, in case of confirmation of his service, his services were liable to be terminated on one month notice or payment of one month salary in lieu thereof, however, in the instance matter, the reason given as 'unsatisfactory performance' after his confirmation became redundant, as the very termination order carried a stigma in the shape of "unsatisfactory performance" which ultimately would be a hurdle for the petitioner while applying to other departments in future

Allegations against the petitioner pertained to bypassing a channel in the matter of correspondence and nowhere, it was alleged that the interest of the University, at any stage, had been compromised

Even otherwise, when there were allegations of any kind against the petitioner, the University was required to have allowed him proper opportunity to defend himself

Termination order was set aside and the petitioner was reinstated in service

Constitutional petition was allowed.

Petitioner sought direction to University authorities to accept her application for the post of Associate Professor and also assailed criteria fixed for the post

Validity

Principle of laches is based on maxim "vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit", which means equity helps wakeful and not the slumbering

Equity aids the vigilante and not those who sleep over their rights

Laches signifies laziness in pursuing a legal remedy, which results in estoppel against petitioner seeking remedy otherwise available under the law

Law is to favor the vigilante and not the indolent

In the present case there was delay of 22 months in filing petition for assailing criteria fixed for the post through advertisement dated 10-01-2021, after the last date for filing applications had already expired on 26-02-2022

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as the petition was not only barred by laches but the petitioner was also estopped by her conduct to challenge the process at such stage

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners sought change in mode of payment of college dues from US Dollars to Pak Rupees and also sought their adjustment on regular seats which were lying vacant

Validity

Petitioners applied on overseas sponsored category and their sponsors had expressed willingness to pay applicable fee in US Dollars at the time of admission

Grievance of petitioners had arisen due to continued decline of Pak Rupees in relation to US Dollars

Candidates who had applied and taken up foreign or self-finance seats could not see transfer of such further seats of either category as remained vacant to open merit quota and to be accommodated against those transfer seats

Petitioners could not be allowed to approbate and reprobate so as to accept a benefit and then seek to resign from their earlier position so as to avoid related burden

Petitioners were bound by their previous conduct

High Court declined to interfere in the matter

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction does not interfere in the matters of examinations and/or admissions to the educational institutions as the authorities concerned are sole judges of the criteria laid down by the institutions in their prospectus and/or calendar unless an ex-facie case of jurisdictional error is pointed out.

Prospectus, rules and regulations framed by the public educational institution are meant as administrative policy of the respective institute, which are recognized and made applicable to all the candidates without any discrimination

In academic matters the University authorities are the best judges to interpret their Rules and Regulations

Normally courts are reluctant to interpret the same unless a case of grave injustice is made out otherwise it would become difficult for the universities to run their affairs.

Petitioners did not meet the eligibility criteria for getting admission in BBA (Hons) being offered by the educational institution

Since the educational institution, also a degree awarding authority, was disputing the very admission of the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners could not claim to have acquired a vested right to appear in the examination and continue with their studies in the BBA (Hons)

High Court observed that since the educational institution was instrumental in providing admission to the petitioners in BBA (Hons) despite their lacking eligibility criteria, as such, it was liable to refund the fee so far collected from the petitioners and/or provide them benefit in the shape of credit hours for the period that they had studied, if the law/rules/regulations/policy so permitted

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Right to seek admission in an educational institution and to continue studies therein is always subject to the rules of discipline prescribed by the institution, therefore, a student who intends to pursue his studies in the institution is bound by such rules.

Democracy, human rights and the rule of law cannot become and remain a reality unless higher education institutions, and staff and students, enjoy academic freedom and institutional autonomy

Academic, administrative and disciplinary autonomy of a university must be therefore, respected.

Educational institutions are bound by the policy laid down in their prospectus and it is obligatory upon the student to follow the same

High Court, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, does not interfere in the matter of internal policy of the educational institution unless decision of the University is illegal or arbitrary.

Petitioner assai-led the provisions of prospectus which stipulated that if a candidate had been once admitted to any other professional institution against the government reserved seat, he would not be eligible to seek admission in the University

Validity

Referred provision of the prospectus was quite clear and was indeed unequivocal

Purpose behind the referred provision was to put a check upon the person who got admission in one professional institute and start studying there and later on applied for admission in another professional institute

Petitioner had failed to point out as to how the provisions of the prospectus were violative of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Petitioner candidate was aggrieved of admission on seat reserved for students from erstwhile Federally Administered Tribal Area, which was given to respondent who was holding two domiciles at the time of admission

Validity

Any person could possess only one domicile at a time

Having two domiciles at the same time was an illegal act which fact was even made known to respondent when second domicile was issued to him

Respondent was dual domicile holder and in case a person who had two domiciles at a time then subsequent was to prevail

During existence of subsequent domicile, he was not entitled to get admission in medical college against one of the seats reserved for erstwhile Federally Administered Tribal Area students

High Court directed the authorities to cancel admission of respondent and petitioner be given admission as he was on merit next to respondent

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Institutions providing education are exempt from applicability of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, under S. 1(3)(h) but this clause excludes institutions which are being run on commercial basis.

Petitioner/Establishment was aggrieved of registration of private respondent as a Collective Bargaining Agent by the Registrar of Trade Unions

Petitioner was a charitable educational institution which was a registered trust

Major source of income of the petitioner was donations from trustees and surplus of income and funds over expenditures of the trust were solely used for the promotion of purposes and objects specified in the trust deed

No dividend/bonus from surplus funds of the trust could be given to any members of the trust or his relatives

Petitioner (Institution) was also granted an exemption certificate in terms of S.100C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Petitioner was issued a NPO (Non Profitable Organization) certificate by a NPO Certification Agency

Registrar was swayed by the fact that the trust was making profits as also that the infrastructure built in the school had not been developed out of the donations made by the trustees but was being made from the fee charged from the majority of the students

Only question was whether the funds were being expended on a commercial basis and in the absence of any evidence, it was unlawful to conclude that the petitioner trust was being run on commercial basis

Petition was allowed, impugned order as well as certificate of Collective Bargaining Agent were declared to have been issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

Petitioners were aggrieved of not including their improved marks, obtained in Special Examination, while preparing final merit for admission in MBBS/BDS by authorities

Contention of petitioners was that improved marks of candidates in the category of 'delayed result candidates' was accepted by authorities but that of petitioners obtained under 'Special Examination' were not included in their lists

Validity

After declaration of original result for HSSC and A-level examination, all students had a right to attempt for improvement of marks in respective Special Examinations

Petitioners and other candidates appeared accordingly in examinations and their results were declared on same dates

Separate Class was created within similarly placed person, by introducing technical condition in computer system

Technicality introduced in computer system was though a policy matter but it offended fundamental right of 27 candidates under Art. 37(c) read with Art.25 of the Constitution by creating a class within a class

Petitioners already applied for substitution of their improved marks before cut-off date which request was declined through written orders or by not entertaining their applications

By rejecting request for substitution of marks, authorities were ousting petitioners for a technicality, from being considered on merit, which was violation of fundamental right under Art.25 read with Art.37(c) of the Constitution

High Court directed the Vice Chancellor of University Health Sciences to ensure that improved marks of petitioners and others were included in their respective applications for admission by substituting original marks till cut-off date, while preparing merit list for admissions for MBBS/BDS in question

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Furthermore there was a three year limitation on proceeding with such maters under the General Regulation of the Calendar of the University of the Punjab for the year 1998

Petitioner was proceeded against after 24 years

Explanation that the period of limitation commenced from the date of verification process was not tenable

High Court observed that University had to be vigilant of its processes and all results should be verified at the time they were determined

Once the degree was issued the University could not quash the result after the three year limitation

Constitutional petition was allowed and impugned letter was set aside.

Institutions providing education are exempt from applicability of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, under S. 1(3)(h) but this clause excludes institutions which are being run on commercial basis.

Petitioner/Establishment was aggrieved of registration of private respondent as a Collective Bargaining Agent by the Registrar of Trade Unions

Petitioner was a charitable educational institution which was a registered trust

Major source of income of the petitioner was donations from trustees and surplus of income and funds over expenditures of the trust were solely used for the promotion of purposes and objects specified in the trust deed

No dividend/bonus from surplus funds of the trust could be given to any members of the trust or his relatives

Petitioner (Institution) was also granted an exemption certificate in terms of S. 100C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Petitioner was issued a NPO (Non Profitable Organization) certificate by a NPO Certification Agency

Registrar was swayed by the fact that the trust was making profits as also that the infrastructure built in the school had not been developed out of the donations made by the trustees but was being made from the fee charged from the majority of the students

Only question was whether the funds were being expended on a commercial basis and in the absence of any evidence, it was unlawful to conclude that the petitioner trust was being run on commercial basis

Petition was allowed, impugned order as well as certificate of Collective Bargaining Agent were declared to have been issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

Petitioner was aggrieved of cancelling his Bachelor of Arts (BA) (Pass) result and withdrawing attestation of his Degree by University on the ground that he had been found guilty of tampering with his Intermediate Mark Sheet

Validity

Other than two final letters in question, all further correspondence ensued to the exclusion of petitioner

Two letters in question were issued almost a decade after the petitioner had completed his degree program

Even if it was accepted that address shown therein was one that the petitioner had given at relevant time, it was inconceivable that the same had ceased to be current

Record was silent as to how those letters were dispatched and whether the same were even received, and if so, by whom, or whether they were returned

Counter-Affidavit to the petition submitted on behalf of University also made no mention of such aspect

In both letters in question it was mentioned that petitioner had already been found culpable and punitive measure of cancellation had been taken in the matter

High Court set aside the order passed by university

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

In the order of the Supreme Court titled "Appointments of Permanent Vice Chancellor of Punjab University (Human Rights Case No. 13865-P of 2018)" a rule of general application relating to the appointment of Vice-Chancellors in public sector universities on the basis of recommendations of search committees had been laid down

Applicability of the said rule was not limited only to the universities before the Supreme Court but to all universities in the public sector under the control or authority of the government which was fully represented before the Supreme Court when the order was passed

Further, the said order was not only implemented with reference to the institutions before the Supreme Court but to all other public sector universities for all intents and purposes

Said order had also attained finality and continued to hold the field.