FIAZ AHMAD ANJUM JANDRAN, J. Through instant writ petition, petitioner impugns letter dated 19.06.2017 issued by respondents 1&2 (National University of Modern Languages NUML ) whereby his name was struck off from the roll call of NUML.
2. Essential and relevant facts for adjudication of the instant writ petition are that petitioner , enrolled in the year 2005 after completing all pre-requisites, applied for award of PhD Degree but vide impugned letter , he was informed that his name was struck off from the roll of NUML pursuant to decision of 4th Board of Advance Studies and Research (BASR) as he failed to submit his publication of research article in Higher Education Commission
(HEC) recognized "Y" category journal within stipulated time. The petitioner then approached the rector of NUML but without any response, hence, instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has already complied with the stipulation of publishing his paper; that he was treated with discrimination and that instant writ petition is maintainable.
4. Learned counsel for NUML objected upon maintainability of instant writ petition while on facts asserted that claim of the petitioner is time barred; that the requirement is mandatory; that the petitioner failed to submit an acceptance letter/published article in the HEC approved "Y? category journal within time, where-after his case was presented in 4th BASR held in May, 2017 and on the recommendations, impugned action was taken and that this Court cannot interfere in policy matter .
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/ HEC argued that as per its criteria, publication of at least one research paper in the approved journal is mandatory; that the impugned action is a policy matter of NUML, who is the best judge to make its policies and to regulate the same in accordance with rules/regulations.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
7. The time duration for completion of PhD or equivalent degree was fixed as 3 to 8 years by the HEC which has been adopted by the NUML in its Board of Governors meeting dated 20.07.2016 whereby the PhD students who have already completed six years or beyond were allowed to complete their PhD requirements including publication of articles within two years.
8. In the present case, it is an admitted position that final thesis defence of the petitioner was conducted on 30.06.2014. His case was presented in the BASR on 17 & 18th November 2016 and he was asked to submit acceptance letter/published article in HEC approved "Y" category journal within six months but the petitioner failed to submit the same within the af forded period.
9. At this juncture, it is necessary to mention that in order to afford one more opportunity , the NUML has already given out of way favourto the petitioner as he was declared dormant but despite that was afforded another six months for fulfillment of mandatory requirement but he failed to get his article publis hed and to produce the letter of acceptance which is a compulsory requirement for PhD.
10. The belated submission of research paper for publication is an un-deniable fact. The petitioner intends to have concession which would amount to abrog ate policy decision of NUML as well as HEC. None of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner would be considered enough to counter the above factual and legal position. Granting such a relief would not only amount to complete violation of HEC guidelines, adopted by the NUML, but would be injustice to other similarly placed students and would also open a floodgate for such like prayers.
11. It is by now well settled that constitutional petitions assailing internal university policy matters for examination and admissions are not maintainable. Reliance is placed upon "University of Health Sciences v, Arslan Ali"
(2016 SCMR 134), Government College University Lahore v, Fiza Abbas (2015 SCMR 445), Muhammad Ilyas v, Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan (2005 SCMR 961), Muhammad Saiq v. University of Sindh (PLD 1996 SC 182), Pakistan Medical and Dental Council v. Raza Muhammad Khan (1992 SCMR 1621 ) and Ahmad v. Vice Chancellor , University of Engineering & T echnology ( PLD 1981 SC 464 ). "
12. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment in policy decision is not applicable in the case of the petitioner due to having no retrospective effect, has also been considered and it is found that to that extent too, NUML has granted sufficient time to the petitioner . In principle, policy decision made by the respondent, who in like matters are the best judge to lay down, formulate and decide the matters could not be interfered with.
Such decision could not be interfered in jurisdiction exercised under Article 199 of the Constitution.
13. Even otherwise, the claim of the petitioner regarding discrimination, submission of relevant material within time, publication within prescribed time and counter response, denialalso give rise to factual inquiry which exercise cannot be carried out under constitutional jurisdiction. Reliance is placed upon case law reported as "Amir Jamal v. Malik Zahoor-ul-Haq" ( 2011 SCMR 1023 ).
14. It goes without saying that matter , like the one at hand, entails discipline of imparting education. What period would be sufficient and what is not for undergoing a particular course, program is to be determined by the Regulator and the institution concerned. When an action appears to have been taken in accordance with the policy decision/guidelines, no direction could be passed to the institution concerned to act in violation of its policy .
15. Another important aspect of the matter is that petitioner prays for a "writ of mandamus" which is meant for a direction to act in accordance with law and not otherwise. It is not the preroga tive of this Court to set a new precedent under the said writ for doing an act in contravention of the policy matters.
16. Having examined the case from every angle, there appears no justification to interfere in the impugned action, which is in accordance with policy on the subject. The petitioner has not been able to highlight any departure from the policy on the subject. The internal academic policy matters are not open for interference unless proved some malafide, violation of law or fundamental right of the petitioner to be violated. Consequently , instant writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed .