' SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, J.---By virtue of instant petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has called in question vires of letters dated 18-7-2008, 18- 8-2008 and 30-8-2008 issued by the Assistant Professor, Deputy Registrar (Academic) and the Secretary to Vice Chancellor, University of the Punjab, respectively.
2. Succinct facts, as gleaned out from the instant petition, are that pursuant to an advertisement in the national press the petitioner applied for his enrolment as Ph.D Research Scholar in the discipline of Law. After qualifying prescribed written test and interview, the petitioner was enrolled as Ph.D Research Scholar in the aforesaid discipline. However, neither the Doctoral Program Committee (DPC) notified name of the Research Supervisor of the petitioner nor the Board of Studies/Faculty Council approved his title/synopsis. On the other hand, the Principal, University Law College, Lahore, (being Chairman/ Convener of the Board of Studies) through his communication, dated 31-7-2002, asked the petitioner to submit his synopsis. Since neither any Research Supervisor for the petitioner was nominated nor his title/synopsis was approved, the petitioner kept on waiting till the year 2004. As a last ( resort, the petitioner, through letter, dated 29-5-2004, submitted his synopsis before the Principal/Convener/Chairman Board of Studies, University Law College under the title "Scope of Writ Jurisdiction" with the request that the same be officially put on record pending approval of the said title and the Research Supervisor. Though the request of the petitioner was duly acknowledged by the quarters concerned but no intimation regarding its acceptance or otherwise was communicated to him. Thereafter, the petitioner repeatedly requested in writing to the College/ University authorities for nomination of his Research Supervisor but in vain. Name of the petitioner remained on the roll of the University till the year 2007. In the month of November 2007, the University authorities floated a proclamation in national press inviiing applications for enrolment of Research Scholars in different disciplines of Ph.D program whereupon the petitioner approached not only the Principal of the Law College, but also the University authorities, through various written requests, apprising them that without nomination of his supervisor fresh applications in the discipline of Law could not be invited. In addition thereto, the petitioner also approached authorities concerned for renewal of his library membership which was turned down on the ground that his Ph.D programme has become time barred and according to the revised Rules no Ph.D scholar can be allowed to remain on the roll of the University beyond seven years.
The petitioner readily approached the Vice Chancellor through letter dated 10-8-2008 agitating his grievance regarding unlawful attitude of his subordinate authorities towards renewal of his library card which was turned down through impugned letter dated 18-7-2008 with the observation that as matter regarding appointment of Research Supervisor of the petitioner was under consideration in the office of the Chairperson/DPCC, his library card could not be renewed. Though a probe was conducted in line with the observation contained in letter dated 18-7-2008, however, the petitioner was issued letter dated 18-8-2008, by the Deputy Registrar (Academic), University of the Punjab whereby it was conveyed that Advance Studies and Research Board has only allowed his re- registration in Ph.D program. By virtue of impugned letter dated 30-8-2008, the petitioner was informed that consent of his Research Supervisor was not available on the synopsis submitted by him. The petitioner replied the said letter through communication, dated 1-9-2008, but without any response from the quarters concerned. Being dissatisfied with the impugned letters, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.
3. The legal prepositions, put forwarded by learned counsel for the petitioner, can be summarized in the words that it was incumbent upon the DPC and Board of Studies/Faculty Council to approve the title/synopsis and name of the Research Supervisor for the petitioner but the said Bodies, despite repeated requests of the petitioner, failed to discharge their duties, thus, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of default on the part of university authorities; that while submitting synopsis the petitioner in clear cut words sought permission for nomination of Prof. Dr. Dil Muhammad as his Research Supervisor and approval of his title as "The Scope of Writ Jurisdiction" but no action was taken by the competent authorities; that after submission of synopsis by the petitioner, he was not informed regarding their approval or otherwise; that on the one hand. The University authorities have admitted the fact that neither Research Supervisor of the petitioner was nominated nor his title/ synopsis was approved but on the other they have asked the petitioner for re-registration on the ground that consent of the Research Supervisor was not available on the synopsis submitted by him; that when the competent authority failed to nominate Research Supervisor how the petitioner could get his consent; that to show his bona fide the petitioner submitted applications to the concerned authorities for nomination of his Research Supervisor; that condition of seven years for a Ph.D scholar cannot impede the way of the petitioner for the reason that the University authorities failed to discharge their duties in an efficient manner for which the petitioner cannot be penalized; that in their report and para wise comments the respondents have admitted that the petitioner had been submitting various applications to the authorities in the Law College as well as in the University but no action was taken thereon; that alleged probe on the basis whereof the petitioner has been knocked out was conducted in an ex parte manner as the petitioner was not associated therewith; that after re-registration of the petitioner he is likely to suffer a lot as the persons, who have been enrolled prior to re-registration of the petitioner, would become senior and that impugned letters are clear example of maladministration on the part of University authorities.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of University authorities, while referring to report and para wise comments, submits that according to the revised Regulations, a Ph.D scholar cannot remain on the roll of the University for more than 7 years, thus, the petitioner has rightly been held entitled for re-registration; that when the petitioner failed to get consent of the Research Supervisor on the synopsis submitted by him, no premium can be taken by him on the ground that he submitted the synopsis well within the prescribed time; that when the Regulations do not permit retention of Ph.D scholar beyond 7 years, submission of applications by the petitioner before different forums is immaterial; that submission of synopsis by the petitioner before the Principal University Law College was inconsequential for the reason that neither the said person was appointed as Research Supervisor of the petitioner nor he put his signatures in token of receipt of the same; that the petitioner was to move the authorities concerned for getting the consent/approval of the Research Supervisor but he failed to do so, thus, he cannot claim anything alleging inaction on the part of University authorities; that the petitioner is relying upon a written test which was conducted at the time of his enrollment as Ph.D Scholar but the same cannot be equated with comprehensive written examination; that as no comprehensive written examination has been conducted by the College/University since enrollment of the petitioner he cannot claim that he excelled in comprehensive written examination; that with a view to minimize the miseries of the petitioner the competent authority has already decided to re-register the petitioner instead of refusing the same just to save future of the petitioner; that filing of application by the petitioner, dated 29-5-2004, carries no weight as there was no Regulation regarding appointment of fourth Research Scholar; that the petitioner cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath inasmuch as on the one hand he is accusing the University authorities regarding non-nomination of his Research Supervisor but on the other he is claiming that he duly submitted his synopsis before Prof. Dr. Dil Muhammad, the then Principal University Law College; that the petitioner could not submit his synopsis without prior approval by the Board of Studies/Faculty Council, thus, any synopsis submitted before the then Principal University Law College was an exercise in futility and that according to Regulations Relating to the Admission, Registration and Examination for Studies Leading to Ph.D Degree 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as ]Regulations 2001') which were applicable in the case of the petitioner no Ph.D. Research Scholar could remain on the roll of the University for more than five years after his registration.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the documents annexed with this petition as well as those forming part of report and para wise comments.
6. Before delving deep into the merits of the case, I deem it expedient to decide as to whether the petitioner was governed under the Regulations 2001 or the Revised Regulations Relating to the Admission, Registration and Examination for Studies Leading to Ph.D Degree, 2007 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Revised Regulations 2007') notified in the year 2007. Admittedly, at the time of enrollment of the petitioner as Ph.D. Research Scholar, Regulations 2001 were in force. It is important to mention over here that while issuing Revised Regulations 2007 it was inter alia clarified that:-- "These rules shall be applicable to the MS/M.Phil. Leading to Ph.D. And Ph.D. Students admitted after 30th September, 2006. "(emphasis provided)
' The afore-quoted clarification mentioned at the end of the Notification referred supra makes it abundantly clear that the Revised Regulations 2007 are applicable only to the Ph.D. Students admitted after 30th September, 2006. Since the petitioner was enrolled in Ph.D. In the year 2001, the Revised Regulations 2007 are inapplicable in his case in view of the clarification provided in the Notification quoted above rather the Regulations 2001 in force at the relevant time are attracted in the petitioner's matter.
7. Now reverting to the merits of the case, I am of the view that according to Regulations 2001, the DPC was to recommend to the Dean of Faculty concerned for approval of the names of applicants, who were found suitable for studies leading to Ph.D degree along with the name of Research Supervisor. On the other hand, the Board of Studies/Faculty Council was to approve the title/synopsis of the thesis and name of Research supervisor within one year after the admission of the petitioner. Reference in this regard can safely be made to Regulation No,IV of the Regulations 2001 which for convenience of reference is reproduced herein below:-- (a)......
(b)......
(c)......
(d)...... "iv. An applicant shall be judged on the basis of the following criterion for admission: Minimum marks for qualifying...
' The Doctoral Programme Committee shall recommend to the Dean of Faculty concerned for approval of the names of the applicants, who are found suitable for studies leading to Ph.D degree along with the name of the supervisor/s. The selected candidates shall pay their dues (Annex-I) within 15 days of Admission Notification, failing which their admission shall be deemed as cancelled. The Board of Studies/Faculty Council will approve the title/synopsis (Guidelines for the preparation of synopsis are given in Annex-II) of the thesis and name of Research supervisor/s within one year after the admission."
It is admitted position that neither the DPC nominated the Research Supervisor of the petitioner nor the title/synopsis was approved by the competent authority. In this state of affairs, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner rather the sluggish and uncalled for conduct of the University/College authorities calls for stern action. Thus, the action taken against the petitioner on the premises that the synopsis submitted by him were bereft of signature of the Research Supervisor, cannot be given legal blanket under the shadow of Revised Regulations, 2007 which otherwise are not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Even otherwise if the said condition was available in Regulations, 2001, the same could not be pressed into service by the respondents while penalizing the petitioner for the reason that said condition came into play only when the respondents discharged their duties postulated under the said Regulations whereas the admission on the part of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that neither Research Supervisor of the petitioner was nominated nor his title/synopsis was approved speaks otherwise.
8. During the course of scanning the record, I have observed that the application submitted by the petitioner on 10-8-2008 was responded to by the Vice. Chancellor through his Secretary inter alia with the following observations:- "This is with reference to your application dated 10th August, 2008, addressed to the Vice Chancellor, University of the Punjab, Lahore.
' The comments of the Incharge Principal, University Law College are as under: - "This is to inform you that, the Board of Studies in Law in its meeting held on 29-7-2007 considered the cases of the Ph.D. Students of University Law College of the years 2001, 2003, and 2004. The Board constituted a Committee Headed by Prof. Sh. Imtiaz Ali to probe into these matters. A meeting of the same Committee was held on 31-7-2008 which considered such matters and approved two out of them where the Ph.D. Pre-requisites were complete. However, the case of Syed A.S. Shah and some others where the requirements were deficient, the Committee resolved to reconsider the same within a period of one month or so. The Board of Studies in Law in its meeting held on 4-8-2008 allowed the same.
' It is pertinent to mention here that in case of 'Sayed A.S. Shah, the consent of his Research Supervisor is not available."
' A perusal of concluding lines of the afore-quoted communication shows that Board of Studies observed that in the case of the petitioner the consent of his Research Supervisor was not available. It is very ironical that on the one hand the respondents have admitted that neither Research Supervisor of the petitioner was nominated nor approval of his title/synopsis was granted but on the other have penalized the petitioner on the ground that Synopsis submitted by the petitioner did not carry the consent of his Research Supervisor. It is important to mention over here that when no Research Supervisor was nominated by the authorities concerned, the question regarding consent of the Research Supervisor on the synopsis submitted by the petitioners did not arise. A perusal of the material on record shows that University authorities, instead of remedying their inefficiency, have ruined the educational career of the petitioner. It is well settled by now that nobody should suffer on account of any omission and commission on the part of government functionaries. Reliance in this regard can safely be placed on the cases reported as Muhammad Yasin v. Secretary, Govt. Of Punjab and others (2007 SCM R 1769) and. District Coordination Officer, Narowal v. Ansgr Pervaiz (2006 SCM R 997). In the case of Muhammad Yasin (Supra) the apex Court of the country has inter alia observed as under:-- "Therefore, action of the respondent is not in consonance with the well-known principle of equity, justice and fair play. It is a settled law that public functionaries are duty bound to act within the frame work of Constitution and law as law laid down by this Court in Zahid Akhtar's case PLD 1995 SC 530. It is a command of the Constitution by virtue of Article 5(2) read with Article 4. That everybody whosoever must act in obedience of the Constitution to perform/discharge their duties in accordance with law as law laid down by this Court in 'Ch. Zahur Elahi's case PLD 1975 SC 383."
' Similarly, in the case of District Coordination Officer, Narowal (Supra):-- "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also perused the available record. Admittedly, the respondents had rendered about 14/15 years' service. The petitioners could not take benefit of their inaction at the relevant time. The Tribunal in the facts and the circumstances of the case was quite justified in converting the penalty of removal of the respondents from service into compulsory retirement. In any case, these petitions do not involve any substantial question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan."
' If the matter of the petitioner is adjudged on the touchstone of the afore-quoted judgments of the apex court Of the country, I feel no hesitation to hold that conduct of the persons at the helm of affairs of the University of the Punjab is not above board. If the affairs of the educational institutions, especially Universities, which otherwise are considered Centres of Excellence, are run by such inefficient persons the future of our coming generations would be at stake.
9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents while adopting the plea that University authorities are still ready for re-registration of the petitioner has referred to the proceedings of the meeting of the Departmental Doctoral Program Committee
(DDPC) held on 14-7-2012. A perusal of the minutes of the DDPC shows that while dealing with Item No,3 under the heading "Re-registration Cases" the members inter alia observed as under:- "The members observed that inordinate delay had already occurred in the instant cases due to non-availability of supervisors and other procedural intricacies......... "
The afore-quoted portion from the minutes of the DDPC lends support to the petitioner's version that University/College authorities failed to discharge their liability towards nomination of his Research Supervisor and approval of title/synopsis. With anguish pain in my heart, I observe that if supervisors were not available at the relevant time, why the University authorities proceeded to float a proclamation inviting applications from prospective candidates for admission in different disciplines. Insofar as the excuse of procedural intricacies, as portrayed in the minutes, under discussion, is concerned, I am unable to comprehend such intricacies. If the affairs of the universities are allowed to be thwarted on account of procedural formalities, then the confidence of the students in the apex educational institutions of the country will be shattered.
' Further, in letter dated 18-7-2008, issued by Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Dogar, Assistant Professor, University Law College, it has been admitted that since the year 2001 there is no remarkable progress in Ph.D programme on account of certain reasons. I fail to understand that all the University authorities have taken unanimous stance that no material progress took place since the year 2001 when the petitioner was enrolled as Ph.D. Research Scholar but none of them took pain either to take any remedial step for eradication of so-called procedural intricacies or to apprise the students about their future. It is sorry state of affairs that educational institutions, imparting higher education to the masses, are being run without any solid future planning. Likewise, the authorities responsible for the monitoring of the educational institutions have either shut their eyes from the mismanagement of the affairs of such institutions or they have settled their scores with them.
Though it is voice of all and sundry that reasonable budget should be allocated for education sector but the maladministration of Universities, as is evident from the facts and circumstances of present case, compels a man of prudent mind to think that in addition to allocation of reasonable budget for the educational institutions, their affairs should be strictly monitored and in case of any deficiency on the part of an authority, stern action should be taken against the delinquents so that rest of the persons working in the said sphere should be put at guard.
10. It is important to mention over here that while issuing the letters, impugned in this petition, the respondents have relied upon the Regulations governing the affairs of the Research Scholars in Ph.D Programme. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that Regulations 2001 were applicable in the case of the petitioner. There is no denying the fact that there is an embargo in the said regulations that no Ph.D Scholar can remain on the roll of the University beyond five years of his registration but the question posed before this Court is that when the University authorities failed to discharge their obligations envisaged under the said regulations, how the petitioner could be proceeded against under the umbrella of the Regulations, 2001. There is nothing denying the fact that every matter should be Governed under the relevant rules/regulations but at the same time it is equally true that when the government functionaries fail to discharge their liabilities; they cannot be allowed to play havoc with the public-at-large in general and the students in particular while taking aid of any rule or regulation. Moreover, the act of the government functionaries cannot be allowed to prejudice case of an individual especially when there is no omission or commission on his part. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case reported as Muhammad Yasin (Supra) wherein it has inter alia been observed as under:-- "It is a settled proposition of law that nobody shall be penalized by the inaction of the public functionaries..."
11. Though brain-drain from the country has become issue of the day and many conventions/ symposiums are being held at government as well as public level to highlight its causes and the measures to be taken for eradication thereof but the dismal background forming factual canvass of the instant case provides answer to it. When we ourselves are not ready to acknowledge the persons excelling in their respective fields, they are well within their rights to migrate to other countries to save their future. It is high time to note that according to the learned counsel for the petitioner since the registration of the petitioner, no person has been able to get a degree in Ph.D in the discipline of law. This pathetic state of affairs speaks volumes about lack of interest on the part of the persons at the helm of the affairs of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) as well as the members of the ruling party. Though in the rest of the world the education is being given top priority but in our country the said important subject has been left. Unattended which would ultimately result into ruination of the future of our coming generations.
12. Though learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/University repeatedly argued that University authorities are ready to accommodate the petitioner by way of re-registration but I am of the view that the same does not provide answer to the query raised in this petition inasmuch as the proposition, in brief, before this Court is as to whether the registration of a Ph.D scholar can be rescinded 'on account of non-submission of synopsis or expiry of five years when no Research Supervisor was nominated by DPC. When the respondents failed to abide by the Regulations, how they can be allowed to proceed against the petitioner while taking aid of said Regulations.
13. The government is bound to ensure protection of fundamental rights of the citizens of the, country. Article 3 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, bounds the State to eliminate any kind of exploitation towards its masses. The discussion. Made in the fore going paragraphs renders it crystal clear that the University authorities when failed to perform their duties diligently, ventured to proceed against the petitioner instead of remedying their follies. In this scenario, there leaves no doubt that act of the respondents are Aimed at to exploit the petitioner.
14. As a necessary corollary to the discussion made in the fore-going paragraphs, I have no doubt in my mind to hold that it was duty of DPC and Board of Studies/Faculty Council to nominate Research Supervisor and approve title/ synopsis of the petitioner. In absence of such approval the petitioner could not be penalized for the reason that as per Regulations 2001 he could -not be allowed to remain on roll of the University beyond five years of registration, as in the event of re- registration, there would be no compensation for the period already spent by the petitioner as Ph.D.
Research Scholar. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case reported as Chairman Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Bahawlapur and another v. Rizwan Rashid and 3 others (2005 SCM R 728) wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, while dealing with somewhat similar situation, has observed as under:-- "This being so, the equity would not permit to push the respondents back to the position prior to 1997 as in such eventuality, they will be losing another couple of years of their educational career."
15. For what has been discussed above, instant petition is allowed and impugned letters are set aside. As a result, the respondents/University authorities are directed to nominate Research Supervisor of the petitioner for ,submission of research work etc.
16. As inefficiency and inaction on the part of the University authorities are floating on the surface, the office is directed to immediately transmit a copy of this orders to the Chairman, Higher Education Commission, Pakistan, Islamabad, who shall look into the matter and after fixing the responsibility, shall take action against the delinquents under intimation to this. Court through Deputy Registrar (Judicial): He is further directed to complete the probe within a period of two months from the receipt of certified copy of this order.