Facts in brief are that the petitioner passed GT test held on 25-4 2010 by the National Testing Service, Islamabad in connection with his MS/M.Phil leading to Ph. D. Admission in the Allama Iqbal Open University, (AIOU) , Islamabad scoring 56% marks but for the reasons best known to the respondent, petitioner was not given admission in AIOP. Then petitioner wrote to the NTS Coordinator who directed him to contact Director, Admissions, AIOU for issuance of NTS Score Card but the petitioner was again refused with the direction to contact NTS Coordinator. In short, none of the Institutions AIOU or National Testing Service took the responsibility for issuance of original score card. As the petitioner intends to take admission in M. Phil in some other University for Which he needs Original Score Card as downloaded copy of Score Card is not accepted by any University.
The petitioner repeatedly demanded from respondents to issue him requisite Card but they did not. Hence, this petition for issuance of necessary directions to the respondents.
2. Petition was contested by the respondents taking a few preliminary objections in that neither this court has got any jurisdiction in the matter nor petitioner's claim is otherwise maintainable.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. While supporting their aforementioned objections, respondents learned counsel relied on a hon'ble Lahore High Court ruling as given in RFA No.439/08 titled "Allama Iqbal Open University etc vs Irfan Boota etc" where in a similar case, it was held that AIOU is an educational institution and cannot be described to be undertaking any commercial activity. The term consumer' as define in the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 particularly its clause 2(c) visualizes hiring the services for consideration which concept is Not attracted in the matter in which a student submits an application for appearing in any examination to be conducted by an educational institution; it has been further held in the said judgment that student appearing in the examination of respondent University cannot be described as a consumer' as defined in sec 2(c) ibid nor the respondent University can be described to be a service provider' as envisaged in the provisions of section 2(k) ibid.
5. As against respondents' contentions, petitioner's learned counsel was not able to distinguish the said case law which is found fully attracted in the presence case, therefore, the petition is found not entertainable before this court. The complaint be returned for presentation to a competent forum, if advised so. After completion, file be consigned to record room.