Educational Institutions

It is not the constitutional mandate of the courts to run and manage the public or private institutions at micro level or to interfere in their internal policy and administrative affairs

Courts should generally refrain from interfering in the policy decisions taken by the statutory bodies and authorities tasked with running the matters of educational institutions, which otherwise require technical and professional expertise that may only be attained as a result of specialization and experience of working with the educational institutions, but the courts can interfere in a case, where grave injustice has done, which we believe is not available in the instant case.

Constitutional courts should refrain from interfering in the internal administration and management of educational institutions, particularly in matters falling within the exclusive authority of statutory bodies or governing boards constituted under the applicable law

Autonomy of educational institutions is to be respected and that Courts should refrain from substituting their own opinion for that of competent administrative forums unless the action complained of is shown to be without lawful authority or in violation of mandatory statutory provisions.

Courts should exercise judicial restraint and refrain from intervening in internal decision-making of educational institutions

Such principle does not extend to shielding statutory violations or administrative overreach from judicial scrutiny.

Educational institutions occupy a special niche in our society which provides them a substantial right of "educational autonomy," within which public higher educational institutions are insulated from legal intrusion

Within that autonomous realm, educational institutions are entitled to deference when making academic decisions related to their educational mission

Thus, any interference by Courts of law with orders passed by educational institutions in the interest of the maintenance of discipline would defeat the very purpose for which these institutions exist or it would stultify the powers of the authorities/in charge of educational institutions or prevent them from taking any action against students' misconduct

Universities and educational institutions generally are armed with abundant powers of disciplinary action against recalcitrant students and the Courts are, in no way, minded to deprive them of their powers

While there exists a general principle of judicial restraint, implying that courts should be cautious in intervening in the internal matters of educational institutions, it is not an absolute ban

This restraint is exercised with prudence, and courts may step in when university authorities exceed the defined scope of their authority or act in violation of the statutes

In such cases, the courts play a crucial role in upholding legal standards and ensuring that educational institutions operate within the bounds of the law

Delicate balance between non-interference and necessary intervention is maintained to safeguard the integrity of academic institutions while also holding them accountable to legal frameworks.

Said provision makes education accessible to all children between the ages of 5 and 16, but it is important to note that the state is responsible for providing educational facilities from primary to higher levels

It is widely acknowledged that human resource development is a crucial factor for success and to keep up with the modern world, the youth of the nation must have the skills for self-employability

Therefore, the government should establish institutes or universities for research, technical training, professional development and special studies

Higher education and industrialization are core functions of the state.

Policy decisions taken by statutory bodies and authorities tasked with running the affairs of educational institutions and students, such as Higher Education Commission (HEC)

Courts should generally refrain from interfering in such policy decisions

Matters of academic nature necessitated the need for technical and professional expertise which may only be attained as a result of specialization and the experience of working with and in educational institutions

Courts were neither equipped with such expertise, nor did they possess the relevant experience that would allow for interference in such matters

However, it did not mean that the Courts would not step in at the request of the parties to ensure and ascertain whether or not minimum requirements of natural justice and principles of law had been complied with and whether a case of grave injustice had been made out

Also in cases where a principle of law had to be interpreted,, applied or enforced with reference to or connected with education, the Courts would not hesitate in stepping in.

Contention of petitioner was that educational institutions were suffering hardship and Provincial Government should compensate the schools

Validity

Private schools alone were not suffering due to the lockdown imposed by the Government

Business sectors of country had affected due to the current outbreak of virus

Government had imposed restrictions for the safety of public-at-large

High Court could not interfere in the policy matters of Government

No mala fide, favouritism and arbitrariness had been pointed out by the petitioner on behalf of Government while passing impugned directions

No right of petitioner had been violated due to impugned orders passed by the authorities

High Court under constitutional jurisdiction could annul an 'order' or a 'policy' framed by the Executive, if same was violative of 'Constitution', 'law' or was 'product of mala fide'

Petitioner had failed to point out infringement of any legal right, violation of the Constitution or mala fide on the part of Government while passing the impugned restrictions

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Plea raised by the University was that petitioner committed fraud and misrepresentation who did not avail remedy of appeal and also concealed other legal proceedings initiated by him

Validity

Held, there was no mention of proceedings challenging notice culminating in judgment of Supreme Court and petitioner made no reference to suit filed by him against the University seeking to perpetuate his tenure at the University

Petitioner did not even provide to the High Court particulars of civil suit filed by him or its fate and petitioner never filed appeal against decision of University disseminating vide notice in question

Even verification report declaring education credentials of petitioner as forged was never assailed

High Court declined to exercise Constitutional jurisdiction as petitioner failed to demonstrate any vested right for which enforcement could be sought by him

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner candidate applied on seat reserved for backward area but she was not given admission on grounds that she did not get education from school and college situated in the backward area

Plea raised by authorities was that session for which petitioner applied was completed/closed and she could not be given admission

Validity

Relevant clause of Criteria of Eligibility for Admission in BDS as well as MBBS for candidate from Backward Areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa did not envisage that candidate having acquired education from educational institution which was near to backward area would be given preference over candidate who obtained education from an area which was considerably placed at remote distance from backward area within the district where backward area was located

If facility of education was available at place near to backward area within district where backward area was located and candidate did not obtain his education from that nearest place, rather had obtained education from other part of district where backward area was situated, such candidate could not be denied admission against reserved seat under criteria in question

Authorities misconstrued proviso to Clause-II (ii) of Criteria of the Eligibility

High Court directed the authorities to give admission to petitioner in any public sector college according to her merit

Plea raised by authorities was no ground to withhold admission to petitioner as nobody could be prejudiced by acts/omissions of government/public sector institution

Petitioner was entitled to be given admission either in ongoing session or in forthcoming session whichever was appropriate keeping in view the policy

High Court further directed that respondent should not be disturbed because of her lower position on merit as she was neither at fault nor had made any misrepresentation or fraud while applying for admission against seat in question as she had already completed her first year of education and a vested right had accrued to her to complete her education

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Candidate contended that his certificate of Hafiz-e-Quran was from registered institute and that he recited all the asked verses of Holly Quran before Admission Committee of the university

University contended that the candidate had failed to qualify for the grant of additional marks

Validity

Prospectus of university revealed that the committee would conduct a structured test of the candidates who claimed to be Hafiz-e-Quran and in pursuance of which he underwent the said test

Test sheet produced by the university clearly showed that the candidate could not answer even a single question

Prospectus also mentioned that decision of the committee was to be final

Committee constituted for the purpose had declared the petitioner as failed, therefore, he could not be held to be entitled for additional marks

High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction, could not issue direction to university to add marks to the entry test

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Appellant did not secure required Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) therefore, University did not allow him to continue his admission

Single Judge of High Court declined to interfere in order passed by the university

Validity

Students were bound to obey Prospectus and Regulations which could be changed or altered yearly basis

Matter revolved around Regulations framed by the University and each and every student had got admission after accepting Regulations of the institution

Regulations of university did not permit readmission or up scaling of CGPA

Concepts of compassion and hardship could be considered by High Court for providing relief to aggrieved party in terms of Art. 199 of the Constitution, only when there was room in relevant law to do so but not by breach of law and not by stultifying right accrued to opposite side and/or by enforcing a right which aggrieved party under the law had lost

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in order passed by the Single Judge of High Court

Intra-court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Student on return appeared in the semester of the program but she was declined sessional marks and was not allowed to sit in examination

Validity

Impugned letter declining the request for appearance of student in the examination was unjustified as no reason had been given nor any reference or rule had been mentioned therein which barred her from allowing sessional marks and appearance in examination

When educational institution had allowed the student to attend and participate in the program for one semester abroad, her certificate of participation ought to have been recognized

If student was not exempted from having requisite percentage of attendance and sessional work, condition should have been mentioned in the relieving letter

No such condition was mentioned in the said letter

Educational institution had allowed another student to attend the same program to study a complete semester of full time and on return he was allowed to appear in terms subjects

Present petitioner (student) should have been treated at par

Impugned letter was discriminatory and against the principles of natural justice

Constitutional petition was allowed in accordingly.

Impugned order was issued for an indefinite period and that too against the spirit of basic provisions of S.144 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

Order passed by the District Magistrate was not sustainable under the law

High Court observed that tuition fee and other charges levied by any institution should not be fixed or raised beyond reasonable limits

Registering authority of education department should take matter for cancellation of registration of such institutions who had raised fee unreasonably or violated other conditions

No private educational institution should function without registration

Divisional Commissioners, District Magistrates and Sub-Divisional Magistrates would be bound to take steps for enforcement of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Private Educational Institution (Promotions and Regulations) Act, 2007 and should co-operate with registering authority for implementation of said Act

Order passed by the District Magistrate was quashed as being without lawful authority having no legal effect

Secretary Education and Director Public Instructions (Schools) as well as Director Public Instructions (Colleges) were directed by the High Court to take necessary steps and close all private schools and colleges which were functioning without obtaining registration from registering authority

Writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.

Petitioner submitted application for awarding of final transcript on completion of research work which was refused on the ground that he had scored only 2.06 CGPA and had failed to achieve the required CGPA i.e. 2.67 which was minimum requirement for awarding of M. Sc. Degree

Contention of petitioner was that interim transcript had been issued in his favour after computing 24 Credit hours and thereafter respondent-university had no authority to alter and reduce the CGPA from 3.08 to 2.06

Validity

Petitioner changed courses without permission and prior approval of the Authority

Issuance of interim transcript would only indicate the existing academic status of the candidate

Any entry appearing in the interim transcript would not itself confer any right or privilege independently to the grant of proper certificate/diploma/degree which would be issued after completion of all the requirements for such an award by the candidates

Petitioner had been awarded grade "F" in six different courses and total quality points in all the courses would come to 74.01 which was equal to 2.06 CGPA

Candidate might be allowed to withdraw from courses within 6 weeks of commencement of classes in the relevant semester

Nothing was on record that petitioner applied for grade "W" well within time

Conversion of grade "W" had rightly not been entertained by the university at belated stage

Petitioner had received grade "F" for three times in a course while as per rules a candidate had only one chance to improve the grade by repeating the course

Petitioner had received grade "F" once and later on grade "W" once in the course

Petitioner had one chance to improve his grade in anyone of these three courses

Petitioner could not get the desired grade in some courses

University was the best judge in its internal affairs

University had power to frame regulation qua manner, mode, conduct, standard and regularization of examination from time to time

High Court, while exercising constitutional jurisdiction had to follow and implement the regulation adopted by the university and could not substitute its view with the opinion of those who were actively involved in the making of policies merely on the ground of sympathetic consideration

Petitioner could not substantiate that he had been treated differently from other candidates or against terms and conditions enumerated in the regulation of University

Petitioner had no vested right to claim the modification and alteration in the statute and regulation in a manner he liked

University had the power to make its own regulation in order to achieve the high standard of education which could not be castrated and changed for a particular candidate

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Educational institutions are bound by policy laid down in their prospectus.

Applicability.

Illustration.

Demand of School Leaving Certificate and "O" Level Certificate by a student from his School for getting higher education in another institution of international repute

Refusal of School to issue such certificates to its student despite having passed "O" Level Certificate Examination

Validity

Such act of School could affect and jeopardize not only opportunity of student to receive higher education but also his career and entire future

Such valuable and precious rights of young students would require respect and protection and violation thereof in any manner would not be allowed

Relationship of student and School came to an end after he passed such Examination, thus, School had no right or authority to withhold such certificate for being important and permanent record of such student

High Court directed School to issue such certificates to its student in circumstances.

Candidate was holding two domicile certificates and failed to get one cancelled two years before applying for admission, therefore, he was not allowed admission in Medical College on reserved seat

Plea raised by' candidate was that he got one certificate cancelled before applying for admission

Validity

Even if candidate had got one certificate cancelled, it would not entitle him to apply on reserved seats of a particular district, as requirement of college in that regard was three fold; firstly the local certificate of one district should have been cancelled, at least two years before applying; secondly candidate was required to so inform Selection Committee at the time of admission; and thirdly exercise of discretion by Committee was by way of special case and not as of right

As the stipulated two years period had not expired and Selection Committee was not informed about the candidate holding two certificates, the exception by way of "special case" provided in paragraph 32 of Bolan Medical College Quetta Prospectus, 2008-2009, was not attracted

Selection Committee committed no illegality in rejecting candidature of the candidate on reserved seat of district Gwadar

High Court declined to interfere in the decision made by Selection Committee

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Authorities fixed the criteria of at least 60% of marks in aggregate in the Intermediate Science Examination (Medical Group) (F.Sc.)

Counsel for the petitioner had contended that the matters relating to the admission had to be determined by Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) and not by University of Health Sciences and that to establish a uniform practice and rules, the decision of P.M.D.C. was to prevail as against University of Health Sciences

Petitioner had alternate remedy available to her under S.10 of the University of Health Sciences Lahore Ordinance, 2002

Since the Entry Test had already taken place, jurisdiction of High Court could not be stretched too far to disturb the whole set up

Petitioner having not availed the alter­nate remedy by approaching the Authority under S.10 of University of Health Sciences Lahore Ordinance, 2002, constitutional petition was disposed of with direction to petitioner to approach the Authority under provisions of S.10 of said Ordinance, 2002, who would decide the matter within the parameters of law and consider the case of the petitioner on compassionate ground.

External examiner, during the course of marking, had found similarity in the hand-writing of one petitioner with the other petitioner; at the first instance a case was registered against both the petitioners and a show-cause notice was issued to them

After receipt of reply Disciplinary Committee provided them an opportunity for personal hearing

During the appearance both the petitioners denied the allegation

Disciplinary Committee proceeded against the petitioners, found them guilty and imposed the penalty of disqualifying them froth appearing in . the examination for a period of three years (six chances)

Review filed against that punishment was also rejected

Such was a maximum punishment which could be imposed, while lesser penalty could be awarded

Petitioner's admission in review application was part of record and it could not be denied

No illegality was found in the impugned punishment awarded, but in exercise of parental jurisdiction by High Court, it was observed, that if lesser punishment was awarded that would suffice to meet the ends of Justice

Punishment awarded to disqualify for three years for passing any examination was reduced to 1-1/2 years

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199.

Candidate feeling dissatisfied with his result of the examination, sought re-checking of his papers and he also deposited necessary fees for the purpose but re-checking was not allowed on the pretext that according to Rule 19 of the relevant Rules prescribed period for such an application was 40-days for the filing of application for re-checking, whereas according to amended Rule 11 of Chapter-5, the prescribed period was 15 days after the declaration of result

Said twp Rules had provided limitation for entertaining an application for re-checking the papers

Said Rules in ordinary course could not be bypassed; however peculiar circumstances of the case i.e. glaring mistakes in the result issued by the Board for annual examination 2008, would definitely raise serious apprehension in the mind of candidate with regard to his previous result

Candidate immediately moved an application for re-checking of his papers

Authorities were directed to re-check the papers, however, that finding was limited to the extent of present case on account of peculiar circumstances of the case otherwise the rules could not be bypassed in the ordinary course.

Counsel for the authorities had submitted parawise comments wherein it had been pointed out that on the last date of admission of the application, petitioner was overage by five months and four days and that she deliberately concealed that fact in the admission form

Counsel for the authorities had further submitted that under the Regulation Admission Rules and Regulations for the relevant year the remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner, but she having not availed that remedy, constitutional petition, was not competent

Counsel for the petitioner, in response to that objection had submitted photo copy of the appeal submitted to the Vice-Chancellor of the University through post which was still pending unattended

Constitutional petition was disposed of by the High Court with direction to the Vice-Chancellor of the University to constitute the Appellate Admission Committee which would dispose of petitioner's appeal within specified date positively

If petitioner would not succeed before Appellate Admission Committee, she would be entitled to refund of admission fee from the University because the authorities had also committed negligence by not computing the age of the petitioner at the time of admission.

Candidate was served with a notice by the college, whereby he was stopped from appearing in the Second Professional examination

Validity

College Administration had no authority to restrain candidate from appearing in the Second Professional examination under Rr.13 & 17 of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Rules

Counsel for college administration submitted that as per rules of college a candidate must complete his M.B.,B.S. studies within maximum period of seven years; and in the present case, due to candidate's repeated failure he could not complete his first and second professionals in time so his name was withdrawn from the roll of the college and however offered that candidate might be allowed to appear in the forthcoming examination only subject to furnishing of an undertaking that he would clear the said examination in the first attempt

On the said undertaking candidate was allowed to sit in the examination

College administration, in the meanwhile, filed a petition under S.12(2), C.P.C. on the ground that advocate appearing on behalf of the college had acted unauthorizedly and detrimental to the interest of college and set a wrong precedent for the future which would create serious difficulties for the College administration as an institution

College administration submitted the result in the court according to which the candidate had again failed despite his undertaking

Counsel for the candidate during proceedings, however, made a request to the court that Principal of the College could be summoned to resolve the controversy as the future of a candidate was at stake

Principal appeared in the court and agreed to allow the candidate to appear in the next examination subject to furnishing of his undertaking that he would clear the said examination in the first attempt to show his bona fide and on the basis of his result, it would be decided whether to continue him in the said college for future studies

Candidate was directed to furnish the requisite undertaking to the administration of the college for further studies

Order accordingly.

Petitioner obtained Grade Points of 31.50 in the first semester; his G.P.A. was shown as 1.66 and was promoted on probation, but without any intimation to him that he had been graded `F' in one subject

Petitioner was dropped out of the programme

Petitioner had submitted that he was being discriminated as in a number of identical cases the students who had obtained "C" Grade in 11 or more subjects, had been allowed to continue their studies and in other cases many students dropped out from the programme had been permitted to rejoin

Case of the University was that petitioner should have completed his Degree Programme within the minimum period of five years for Bachelors' Degree Programme

Petitioner who did not complete five years and one year was left to his credit, could not be non-suited or dropped out from Degree Programme or the College Rolls

Case of the petitioner was not attended to in its true perspective and decision was made in haste

University Authorities must always take into consideration the hardship of the petitioner and should have attended to that aspect also

Action of the University dropping out the petitioner from the Programme as well as from the Rolls of the University was declared illegal and was set aside

Authorities were directed to allow the petitioner to join the Programme which was stated to be continuing forthcoming.

Candidates appeared in 3rd Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination, 2005 and were provisionally promoted to final M.B.,B.S. class, however they were declared failed in 3rd Professional Annual Examination 2005 . and could not qualify in the 3rd Supplementary Examination and were detained

Case of authorities was that petitioners were detained in 4th year M.B.,B.S. classes as they failed after availing annual and supplementary chances to get through 3rd Professional Examination

Regulations of the University of Health Sciences, Pakistan Medical and Dental Council and Colleges Prospectus, had amply manifested that a candidate, who passed in one or more subjects, but failed in the Annual Examination would provisionally be allowed to join the next higher class, but such. candidate would have to pass in failed subject in the Supplementary Examination failing which candidate would be detained in that class, and that no candidate could be promoted to the-higher class unless, he passed all the subjects of the previous class

Petitioners who failed even after availing two opportunities, could not be promoted and allowed to continue with their studies in the final year

Action of the authorities by detaining petitioners in 3rd Professional (4th M.B.,B.S. class) was in accordance with the rules/regulations of University of Health Sciences Pakistan Medical Dental Council and Colleges Prospectus

Petitioners thus, were not entitled to relief asked by them and discretionary constitutional jurisdiction could not be exercised in their favour

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199.

Petitioner in response to advertisement, filed application for her nomination against the seat of M.B.,B.S for Leepa Valley in a Medical College in Pakistan

Respondent who also hailed from Leepa Valley, also applied for the same seat

Both contestants appeared in the entry tests conducted by the Provincial Governments and qualified the sane

Petitioner credited 817 out of 1100 marks in F.Sc. and secured 62.45 marks in the entry test conducted by N.-W.F.P. Government and 69.00 marks in the entry test in Punjab

Respondent credited 806 out of 1100, marks in F. Sc. and secured 60.67 marks in the entry test conducted by N.-W.F.P. Government and 69.64 marks in the entry test conducted by the Government of Punjab

Case of petitioner was that she stood first for the purpose of nomination against the reserved seat, while aggregating the marks from both the entry tests against reserved seat, she got higher marks as compared to the respondent

Procedure for nomination according to petitioner as laid down by the apex Court of AJ&K was that merit should be considered in aggregate manner in two Provinces and while doing so, the topper in aggregate position should be nominated

Marks obtained by petitioner in the entry test in N.-W.F.P., were 62.45, whereas in Punjab she secured 69.00; her aggregate marks were 131.45

Respondent obtained 60.67 marks in the test in N.-W.F.P. and 69.64 in the entry test conducted in Punjab; her aggregate marks were 130.31, which had shown that petitioner's aggregate marks were more than that of respondent, but respondent was ahead to the petitioner in the entry test conducted in Punjab, whereas the petitioner was ahead to respondent in the test conducted by N.-W.F.P.

Nomination as per Supreme Court decision was qualified with the passing of entry test both in Punjab and N.-W.F.P. and a candidate would be nominated in view of best of two entry tests formula and not on the basis of aggregate formula

Ground taken by the petitioner for her nomination with regard to admission policy of Medical College in N.-W.F.P. and her marks in N.-W.F.P. entry test was not tenable in the light of judgment of Supreme Court

Writ petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner/candidate who failed to qualify examination in seven academic years, prayed that one more chance be given to him as special opportunity on humanitarian considerations

Prayer of petitioner was declined by High Court

Contention of petitioner was that he could not qualify examination on account of fact that there were extraordinary and abnormal law and order conditions prevailing in the area

Contention was repelled in view of the fact that duration of the course was spread over to five years and candidates were allowed maximum seven academic years from the date of their first admission for passing the final year examination

By declining relief in constitutional jurisdiction, High Court had neither committed any illegality nor had acted with material irregularity justifying interference by Supreme Court under Art.185(3) of the Constitution.

Regulation is to take effect from the date of its approval by the syndicate and on examination conducted subsequent are to be governed under the regulation approved later in time.

Petitioners being students of fourth year M.B.,B.S. were aggrieved of the decision of University with regard to teaching of two subjects, which were earlier to be taught in final year

Plea raised by the petitioners was that such change was against the program stated in prospectus issued at the time of their admissions

Validity

Authorities had the right to lay down the policy for conduct and regularizing its examination

Rules and regulations framed by University Authorities were left to the Authorities themselves to interpret such rules

Courts avoid to interpret the same unless a case of grave injustice was made out

Intervention by Courts in conduct and regularization of examination would make it difficult for University administration to run its internal affairs relating to examination etc.

No injustice would be done to petitioners, if subjects in question would be taken and taught in fourth year

Policy for teaching the subjects in fourth year was formulated on recommendation of Principal of one of the Medical Colleges, which was duly considered by the Academic Council and thereafter Pakistan Medical and Dental Council had approved it

University Authorities were the best judges, being the policy makers, in the relevant field

Courts could not replace its opinion with the opinion of those who were actively involved in making such policy, merely on sympathetic considerations

Student/candidate had no vested right to claim that examination be taken and a subject be taught exactly in the manner as it had been provided in the prospectus of the college, at the time when such student was admitted to a professional college

Prospectus was subject to change and alteration and plea of legitimate expectation set up by petitioners was neither reasonable nor had the backing of law

High Court declined to interfere in the decision taken by the University

Petition was dismissed in circumstances

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199.

Petitioner was a student of B.B.A. in the University, course of which comprised of six Semesters running from years 2003 to 2006

Petitioner appeared in four Semester examination, he was declared pass in first three semesters and was declared failed in 4th Semester on the "ground that he had obtained less than 60% marks

University was directed by the High Court to declare the result of petitioner by evaluating papers on the basis of 50% marks

Petitioner who was promoted to 5th Semester and also appeared in examination, was promoted to 6th Semester and also took examination, but his result was not announced

Petitioner had prayed that University be called upon to announce the result

Validity

Petitioner had passed first, second, third and sixth Semester, but declared failed in 4th Semester

Contention of petitioner was that since it was not his fault that his result was not declared, he was entitled to opportunity to join summer camp so as to save one year of his studies

Petitioner was ready, even to pay amount to the University so as to make up total fee of 10 candidates

Held, it would be just and appropriate to allow prayer of petitioner in the particular circumstances of the case, when despite orders passed by the High Court, he was not informed well in time regarding his result so as to enable him to join regular course at a proper point of time

Petition was disposed of with direction that petitioner would make required payment and after making payment, course for 4th Semester would be made available to him by the University.

Undertaking given by the student and his parents/guardian that the student shall not "indulge in politics" failing which, he shall not be allowed admission and if, after admission, he violates the same, he shall be expelled without further notice

Violation of such undertaking by the student

In the present case, students upon violation of said undertaking, were expelled from University without any show-cause notice

Petitioners were given an opportunity of personal hearing on their written request to Vice-Chancellor of the University which was pending adjudication

Constitutional petition filed by petitioners being not maintainable was dismissed

High Court observed that petitioners would appear before the Disciplinary Committee, which could decide their representations in accordance with law and if aggrieved by the decision of Disciplinary Committee, petitioners might approach the Supreme Court.

"Notice of Admission" published in newspaper inviting' candidates to jour Diploma course of Field Assistant in Agriculture Department

Application for admission by petitioner having passed 'Matric in 3rd Division

Acceptance of application after scrutiny by Authority

Deposit of fees by petitioner and having attended classes for more than one' month

Cancellation of admission by Authority on the ground that petitioner possessing 3rd Division Matric Certificate was not eligible to be granted admissions according to rules

Validity

Petitioner having 3rd Division in Matric was not eligible to apply for such admission, but Authority having such knowledge had granted him admission and had not acted with vigilance

Petitioner had paid dues of Institution after selling some articles of his house to get admission

Petitioner had not committed any fraud, for which he could be removed afterwards

Cancellation of petitioner's admission at such stage was not legal in view of the rule of locus poenitentiae

High Court accepted constitutional petition and allowed petitioner to remain on the role of institution as student and continue his study with all consequential liabilities and benefits.

Petitioner had prayed that act of Authorities in denying petitioners appearance in forthcoming final year examination be declared to be illegal and mala fide and that petitioner be allowed to appear in final year examination

Plea of petitioner/candidate was that since in the earlier round of litigation, one of the candidates was allowed relief, despite the fact that he had nine failing subjects, whereas requirement under the Regulation was that only such candidate could be allowed to appear in the final year examination who carried eight papers of lower class, but petitioner was only carrying four failed papers of lower class

Petitioner prayed that he be given chance to appear in the final examination

Validity

Said other candidate was allowed relief on the ground that he had passed all the papers of the first year examination and he was found deserving for a chance to appear in the examination

High Court declared petitioner disentitled to appear in the final year examination for the reason that he failed in the first year's one paper and without clearing the said back log petitioner could not be helped merely because he was carrying four papers of lower class, which included a paper of first year

Under said Regulation, unless candidate cleared all the papers of first year, he could not be allowed to appear in the final year examination in terms of the Regulation, if petitioner was given such relief same would not only be violative of the Regulation, but would also amount to sitting over the earlier decision of the High Court.

Rules and Regulations for conducting examinations would fall within domain of University Administration to run internal affairs relating to examinations etc.

Allegation against petitioner who appeared in English Paper B of B.A. Examination, was that he did not hand over answer book to Invigilating Staff

Petitioner was found guilty of smuggling out answer-book from Examination Hall in violation of Regulation regarding conduct of examination

Petitioner was communicated decision of unfair means case, according to which he was disqualified for three years

Petitioner received answer-book after making signature on the identification sheet

Perusal of statements of Deputy Superintendent, had shown that Invigilator of Examination Centre was responsible for losing the answer-book in question as he did not come on duty as Invigilator in the next paper

No eye-witness of alleged incident of smuggling of answer-book was on record

Even there was no reason for the petitioner to hand over the answer-book in question to the Invigilating Staff as he had obtained first class marks in other subjects

No indication was on record that findings of using unfair means were approved by Vice Chancellor of the University

Impugned orders were set aside, in circumstances.

Candidate who secured 80% marks in his `A' Level, appeared in entry test, but his result was not declared and he was informed that since the equivalence certificate was not appended by him, his result was not declared

Validity

No requirement existed in the Prospectus or in the application form for providing equivalence certificate from "IBCC"

Candidate, however had provided equivalence certificate to the authorities and had appended general certificate of education from the University of Cambridge with the admission form showing percentage secured by him

Counsel for the authorities was unable to make statement as to whether the candidate otherwise qualified for admission on merit in the University

Authorities were directed by High Court to admit candidate in the University, if he qualified on merit and fulfilled other requirements prescribed by the University.

Candidate had sought re-evaluation of his B.A. Examination Paper "B" (Answer book) contending that two questions in said paper had not been correctly evaluated

No provision being in the University Statutes for re-evaluation of the answer book, candidate was rightly denied re-evaluation of his answer book

Candidate applied for rechecking of paper which had already been done.

Admission of a polio affected girl in Medical College was refused on the ground, inter alia, that her present disability was of such a nature that she could not acquire medical education, though seats for disabled persons were available for admission

Validity

Personal appearance of the candidate in the High Court showed no infirmity, which would render her unable to study further, particularly in medical field

High Court observed that a young ambitious girl should be given an opportunity to prove her ability in the field, when seats on the particular category were still vacant and if at any stage, she would feel difficulty to go parallel to other students, it was hoped that she would be fair enough with herself to withdraw from it

Medical profession, like other branches had number of branches, not necessarily she might go on surgical side, she could be a general physician or consultant as was usually found

Candidate who had proved to be determined intelligent student, had made out a case to be admitted to Medical College in circumstances

Principles.

Admission was declined to the candidate on the ground that candidate had graduated in third Division whereas merit fixed for admission was second Division

Candidate, subsequently had passed master decree in second and first .Division

Effect

Held, second Division Bachelor degree was only minimum threshold in terms of relevant rules, therefore, if a person subsequently acquired a higher qualification i.e. Master degree in first and second Division the disability ought to have been treated as having been removed.

Medical practitioners had to deal with precious human lives, thus they would be expected to be fully equipped with professional skill, knowledge and expertise in medical discipline

Award of grace marks would be against the settled principles of good governance and improving higher standard of professional education

Principles.

High Court, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, declined to set aside the result but Intra Court Appeal was allowed with direction to the University to declare the result of examinees on the basis of Internal Examination only

Plea raised by University was that High Court had no jurisdiction to bypass. system of examination and result could not be declared on the basis of Internal Examination only

Validity

High Court should not have entered into the controversy with regard to the validity of results unless it was proved that there were gross violations of rules and regulations

If High Court had come to such conclusion then in the interest of justice, instead of directing the University to declare the result on the basis of Internal Examination it should have referred the case to University for the purpose of appointment of other examiner to deal with the cases of examinees, if they had any reservations against the Examiner

High Court had no jurisdiction to direct declaration of result on the basis of Internal Examination only

Supreme Court converted petition for leave to appeal into appeal and remanded the case to High Court for reconsideration

Appeal was allowed

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.188 and 185(3).

Petitioner applied for admission in Bolan Medical College against seat reserved for children of non-doctors government servants working in Balochistan Health Services and Paramedical Staff for whom one seat was allocated under para.3(c)4 of Chapter-1 of the Prospectus, but he was refused admission and instead respondent was admitted in the college

Respondent, after entry test, stood at Serial No.1, whereas petitioner stood at Serial No.2 on the merit list

Apart from that respondent had fulfilled condition of para.3(c)4 of Admission Policy being son of Lady Health Visitor who was in service of Provincial Health Department, since 1978

Father of respondent since his arrival in year 1964, was residing in Quetta

Respondent was born in Quetta and had received all his education in Quetta

Status of respondent as well as his father being domicile of Quetta, Balochistan, he could not be denied admission in the College only because his present address did not tally with address mentioned in domicile certificate obtained in year 1998

Respondent being son of Lady Health Visitor had fulfilled condition of Para 3(c)4 of Prospectus and he being domicile of Quetta, Balochistan as per domicile issued to his father wherein his name was also mentioned, had fulfilled condition of Prospectus

Findings of Selection Committee granting admission to respondent in the Medical College, could not be termed as illegal or against Prospectus so as to make any roars for interference by High Court exercising its constitutional jurisdiction

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199.

Petitioner was refused admission in Ist year M.B.,B.S. on the reserved seat of 'Amazai' a backward area, and instead respondent was given admission

Case of petitioner was that he was domiciled of 'Amazai' a backward area and one seat for admission in the college was reserved for that area and that ''Utmanzai", adjoining area was not included in `Amazai' and that respondent who was domiciled of Utmanzai area was not entitled to admission in Medical College

Validity

Held, different areas across the Indus River of Haripur District had been merged into 'Amazai' area and no additional seat had been allocated after merger of said area into 'Amazai' area

Respondent was possessed of high merit as compared to petitioner, he was therefore, rightly given preference and was allowed admission in the college on said quota seat reserved for the said backward area

Both on legal and factual premises, petitioner having failed to make out case for indulgence of High Court, his constitutional petition was dismissed

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199.

Candidate stood successful in entry test and became eligible for admission on said reserved seat, but his domicile of said area became a matter of dispute

Said dispute, however, ended in constitutional petition filed by candidate where his domicile was confirmed/kept intact

Despite that candidate was denied admission in Medical College on the ground that he had not passed Matric and F.Sc. from the said backward area and therefore was not held entitled to get admission on said reserved seat

Validity

Area to which candidate belonged, did not have educational facilities/institutions like High School or Intermediate College with, pre-medical course/studies

Impugned action of refusing admission to the candidate on such pretext, in circumstances was unwarranted and careless dispensation of statutory obligation to the detriment of petitioner, which on the face of it was without lawful authority

Refusal to grant admission to candidate was an act corum non judice, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect

Allowing constitutional petition, Authorities were directed by the High Court to give admission to the candidate forthwith on said reserved seat.

Candidate appeared in First Professional M.B.B.S. Part-I Examination 2003 but failed; she reappeared in the supplementary. Examination held in 2004 and qualified the examination; she took the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Part-II Annual Examination 2004 but remained unsuccessful; she again appeared in Supplementary Examination held in April, 2005 and Annual Examination in December, 2005 but could not qualify and thus exhausted all the three chances permissible under the rules

Contentions of the candidate were that the First Professional Examination M.B.,B.S. was split into two parts, Part-I and Part-II put together were to be considered as one class and candidate could avail the one chance not used by her in the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Part-I as she had qualified the same in two chances

Candidate further urged the prescribed forty day's time between the two examinations was not provided to her as such she could not properly prepare for the Supplementary Examination held in April, 2005

Validity

Held, relevant Regulations of the University revealed that the First Professional M.B.,B.S. comprised of two independent parts i.e. Part-I and Part-II and for each part three consecutive chances, availed or unavailed, had been provided for qualifying the same

Three chances were part specific and by no stretch of imagination could be carried forward

Language of the said Regulations was unambiguous and left no doubt that the left over chances of the First Part could not be carried over to the Part-II

Candidate had opted to avail the earliest opportunity for clearing the examination, therefore, she could not be allowed to have a volte face to say that she was not provided sufficient time

Right of the candidate to seek education was subject to Statutes/Regulations framed by the University to regulate the studies

If a student failed to clear the examination in the prescribed chances, he ceased to become eligible for further medical education.

Petitioner, appeared in B.D.S. Second Professional Annual and Supplementary Examination 2004 but he remained unsuccessful

Petitioner, thereafter, participated in B.D.S. Annual Examination, 2005 and after qualifying the same, he sought permission from authorities for appearing in B.D.S. Third Professional Examination to be held in August 2005 but his request was turned down

Petitioner filed constitutional petition whereby he was allowed to take part in examination subject to result of his petition

Petitioner claimed that he was entitled to participate in BDS Third Professional Examination held in August, 2005 under "Carry on System"-Validity-Regulation 3 of Statutes and Regulations of University of Health Sciences Lahore, 2004, which were admittedly applicable to all Medical Colleges falling under its authority, imposed a bar on promotion of students to second year/next year until all the subjects in First Professional Part 1 Examination had been cleared

Regulation 3 was not only in conflict with restriction, imposed by PMDC but was a step further in achieving the objects for which Regulation 3 was incorporated, that is, to strengthen the academic competency of students

Students who failed in a professional examination were not to be promoted to next higher class until they had passed that examination in full

Petitioner could not qualify Second Professional in Annual and Supplementary Examination held in 2004 and thus he was detained

Petitioner qualified Second Professional Examination by appearing in Annual Examination, 2005, therefore it was not permissible to take examination of Third Professional in same Calendar year

Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Regulation No.23 of Calendar of University of the Punjab, Volume-I, 2002, regarding re-evaluation of answer books stood amended

Vice-Chancellor or an officer authorized by him, under amended Regulation No.23 of Calendar of University of the Punjab, Volume-I, 2002, might, on receipt of application, satisfy himself that result of candidate had been correctly compiled and declared provided the same would not include re-evaluation of candidate's answer book

Candidate had admitted that there was no such power in the statute, rules/regulations of the University; as there was no rule/regulation under which direction for re-evaluation could be issued, therefore, High Court in intra court appeal declined to pass such order, as no infirmity was found in the order passed by High Court

Intra court appeal was dismissed.

Petitioner according to original result, stood first in middle standard examination but subsequently the Board of Secondary Education issued letter to petitioner whereby she was declared to have obtained third position

Petitioner filed constitutional petition and challenged the impugned letter issued by Board through which petitioner's numbers were reduced and she was declared at third position

Petition was dismissed by High Court with observation that no paper/question was re-assessed rather mistake in calculation had been corrected

Validity

Under Rule 7 of Faisalabad Board of Secondary Education Rules, re-assessment of script was not allowed in any circumstance, however re-checking was allowed subject to payment of prescribed fee and request made within 20 days of declaration of result and Rule 13 allowed rectification of any mistake on account of any clerical mistake or wrong interpretation of any rule

Issue raised before Court did not relate to any mistake on account of any clerical mistake or wrong interpretation of any rule rather it related to result of-petitioner and others who were declared first, second and third respectively after declaration of original result

Under rule 13 of Faisalabad Board of Secondary Education Rules power to rectify any mistake was given to Director of Board of Secondary Education and not to the Assistant Director

Rule 13' did not show that Assistant Director would be read as Director or vice versa

"To rectify" meant to right something that was wrong or to correct something and in petitioner's case Rule 13 was applicable

Impugned order/letter through which petitioner was informed about change in her result did not show that decrease in the numbers was a result of re-assessment or re­checking

Petitioner was informed through impugned letter about change in her result without giving any reason, notice or affording her any opportunity of being heard

Once a person was declared having clinched first position in examination he/she could not be deprived of the same unless reasons, notice or opportunity of being heard was afforded to her/him and relevant rule conformed with principles of natural justice

Principle that no one could be condemned unheard was to be read into relevant law unless its application was excluded by express words

Board not only failed to show any error in calculation of petitioner's marks but could not show that petitioner's marks were decreased as a result of re-calculation or re-checking

Change in petitioner's result therefore, was an outcome of re-assessment instead of re-checking which was prohibited by Rule 7

Re-assessment was made in total violation of principles of natural justice

Rule 13 was not meant for correction in calculation of marks or re-checking of marks rather it was meant for rectification of a clerical mistake which might come to light any time after examination or declaration of results

Assistant Director could not exercise powers under Rule 13 for re-checking of marks or removing errors in calculation of marks

Petitioner was robbed of her distinction arbitrarily and in disregard of rule 7

Original result of petitioner, i.e. her first position was restored by High Court and Intra-Court appeal was accepted

Faisalabad Board of Secondary Education Rules, Rr.7 & 13.

Result card issued by University showed that petitioner/candidate was allowed to appear in one or two papers to make up aggregate till 2nd Annual, 1999

Said result card was handed back to office of the University in which interpolation was made and 1999 was converted into 1998

Petitioner was issued Roll Number Slip, and she appeared in two papers and passed both said papers with good marks, but despite that she was declared failed on the ground that University Regulations did not permit such a course of action

It could be so, but no fault could be attributed to petitioner/ candidate either by design or by inadvertence

Petitioner, who applied within time span available to her, was allowed to do so, she was issued a Roll Number Slip and was further allowed to undertake examination, but when she had passed both said papers thereby definitely improving her aggregate enabling her to pass entire examination, she was confronted with said University Regulation

Such a conduct on the part of the University officials, was not to be countenanced at all

Even if it could be assumed that through an inadvertence, error had crept in Result card, it was not open to University officials to interpolate document instead of dealing with the matter fairly and lawfully and then further to try to create a case leading to circumstances absolutely to the detriment of petitioner

High Court allowing constitutional petition declared that she had passed her M.A. (Economics) on the basis of her original result and the result of two papers with the direction that documents be issued to her accordingly.