Ayesha A. Malik J. Through this Petition, the Petitioner challenges the actions of Respondent No.3 as well as Respondent No.2 with respect to the delay caused in the issuance of its registration under the Punjab Private Educational Institutions (Promotion and Regulation) Ordinance, 1984 ("Ordinance") .
2. The case of the Petitioner is that it applied under the Ordinance for extensio n in registration and addition of subjects for the session 2018-19 and 2019-20 on 18.12.2018 with respect to its campus at East Bank Sadiq Canal near Darri Singh Pull, Rahim Yar Khan. In response thereto, an inspection was carried out by Respondent No.3 on 9.7.2019 whereby the Petitioner 's College was recommended for registration. Subsequent thereof Dr. Ashiq Hussain, Director General in the office of Respondent No.3 issued Hope Certificate on 23.7.2019 stating therein that the request for registration of the Superior College, Canal View near Darri Singh Pull, Rahim Yar Khan has been received for the session 2019-23 and is under process in its office. On the basis of the Hope Certificate, the Petitioner applied with the University of Sargodha as well as University of Education, Lahore for affiliation of its degree programs. These were granted on 20.9.2019 and 9.6.2019 whereafter the Petitioner reverted back to Respondent No.3 for issuance of its registration certificate. However Respondent No.3 did not issue the registration certificate, instead Respondent No.2 issued letter dated 16.1.2020 claiming therein that the Petitioner 's application for registration was time barred, hence it could not be granted any affiliation or registration. Respondent No.2 also directed Respondent No.3 to stop entertaining cases for registration of private colleges. Hence the instant Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that Respondent No.2, Higher Education Department has no jurisdiction with respect to registration of private educational institutions under the Ordinance. In this regard, the issue has already been settled by this Court vide judgment dated 14.2.2020 passed in WP No.49585/2019 titled Superior College of Commerce v. Govt. of the Punjab through Chief Secretary & others and judgment dated 14.2.2020 passed in WP No.58931/2019 titled Punjab College v. Govt. of the Punjab through Chief Secretary & others . Learned counsel submits that this Court has already declared interference by the Higher Education Department with reference to the registration of educational institutions as totally illegal, yet Respondent No.2 interfered and has restricted Respondent No.3 from processing the application of the Petitioner . Learned counsel stated that on the basis of the applicati on for registration and issuance of Hope Certificate, the Petitioner has obtained affiliation, admitted students, commenced its programs and now the Respondents are failing to complete the registration process by way of issuance of the registration certificate. Learned counsel submits that once an inspection is carried out and Respondent No.3 is satisfied with the facilities, there is no basis for denying registration to the Petitioner .
4. Report and parawise comments have been filed by Respondents No.2 and 3. Learned Law Officer argued that the Petitioner has not applied for registration as the Petitioner represents Superior College for Girls whereas the application tendered before Respondent No.3 was for Superior College. Hence he stated that the College for Girls has not applied before Respondent No.3 for extension of its registration. He further argued that Secretary , Higher Education Department being the Administrative Secretary of the Department issued notification dated 13.7.2018 in which a time schedule was provided for grant of NOC for public and private sector colleges in Punjab. On the basis thereof the Petitioner filed the application late, hence their application has been refused. Learned Law Officer further argued that the judgments relied upon have been appealed against, however he stated that the ICAs are still pending. So far as Respondent No.3 is concerned, today Sakhawat Ali Dogar , Deputy Director (Colleges) has appeared in Court with the original record as per orders of this Court dated 16.2.2021.
5. Heard and record perused. The basic contention of the Respondents is that the College of the Petitioner cannot be registered as it is a college for girls which did not apply for registration. However admittedly there is an application filed by the Superior College, Rahim Yar Khan which is pending and pursuant to which Hope Certificate was issued. In this regard, I have carefully gone through the original record and note that the address of the college is the same, the inspection report carried out by Respondent No.3 is for the same campus and the Hope Certificate is also for the same Campus. Six members of the divisional inspection team visited the college premises on 25.5.2019 and found that the college satisfied all conditions for registration, hence recommended it for registration in the additional subjects of BS (Computer Science, Information Technology , Chemistry , Mathematics and English) for the session 2019-2023. Consequent thereof a Hope Certificate was issued on 23.7.2019 wherein the Director General of Respondent No.3 acknowledged that the registration was pending and that the Petitioner can carry on with the affiliation process as contemplated under Section 3(3) of the Ordinance which allows the institution to continue to function without registration during the registration process. The Petitioner applied for affiliation with the University of Sargodha and the University of Education, Lahore which was duly granted and the Petitioner has been awaiting registration since 20.9.2019. On 16.1.2020 Respondent No.2 Higher Education Department issued a letter stating that 60 private colleges applied for BS four year degree program after the due date as per the Higher Education Department' s Notification dated 13.7.2018 which cannot be processed and only cases fulfilling Higher Education Department' s criteria can be submitted for necessary action. A list has been attached with this notification which includes the Petitioner college at Serial No.32. The contention of the Higher Education Department is that since Secretary Higher Education Department is the Administrative Secretary of the department, hence he can interfere in the registration process. The record also shows that the Directorate of Public Instruction Respondent No.3 issued a letter on 23.7.2019 seeking issuance of NOC for registration of Private Colleges in BS four year degree program from Respondent No.2. The letter is with reference to the Petitioner 's Campus. However , there is no explanation for its issuance.
6. The Ordinance provides under Section 3 that all institutions are to be registered and under Section 5 the government shall, by notification, constitute one or more District Committees in each district consisting of at least five members to perform its functions related to registration under the Ordinance. The application for registration is to be moved before the registering authority which is an officer or committee as notified under Section 6 of the Ordinance. This means that the regist ering authority is Respondent No.3 which has been notified by the Government to carry out the registration process. As per the preamble of the Ordinance registrations is part of the process for regulating the institutions under the Ordinance. In the entire scheme of the law Respondent No.2 has no role to play. Learned Law Officer does not deny this, however the only explanation for the interference by Respondent No.2 in the registration proce ss is that the Secretary is the head of the department. This argument is misconceived as Respondent No.2 has not been able to show how its Secretary is the administrative head of Respondent No.3. It is also noted that in terms of Section 3, once an application for registration of an institution is submitted, the officer receiving the application shall forward the same to the district committee to make an inquiry and submit its report to the registering authority within sixty days. The registering authority after considering the report of the district committee can carry out further inquiry , if it deems necessary and can impose conditions for grant of registration and issue a registration certificate. Section 6(5) of the Ordinance states that the Government, by notification, can constitute one or more Registering Authorities in a district and if more than one Registering Authority is constituted in a district, the Government shall specify the jurisdiction of each Registering Authority .
Hence Respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction with respect to the registration of an institution under the Ordinance and in this regard the Petitioner 's contention that the matter in issue has already been adjudicated through WP No.49585/2019 (supra) and WP No.58931/2019 (supra) is correct. So far as letter dated 16.1.2020 is concerned, it required an NOC issued by Respondent No.2 for private colleges for the purposes of starting a four year degree programs. It also refers to Respondent No.2' s guidelines of 13.7.2018 on this subject. The guidelines of 13.7.2018 are for starting a degree program and has no relevance to the registration process.
7. As per the Rules of Business, Respo ndent No.2 Higher Education Department is a government department which is primarily tasked with policy formations and sectoral planning. It has an administrative role under the laws mentioned at Serial No.37 includes the Ordinance. This means that the Higher Education Department can help devise policy on the matter but since it has no role under the Ordinance and the Rules, it cannot interfere in the working of Respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 is to register private educational institutions to ensure compliance with the Ordinance and the Punjab Private Educational Institutions (Promotion and Regulation) Rules, 1984 ("Rules") , specifically Rule 11 and 12 of the Rules. In terms of these Rules, the district committee is to ensure that the private institution has the prescribed textbooks; is following the prescribed syllabus; has the relevant employees for teaching; that it is suitably located; that the premises is equipped with furnit ure, equipment and the staff is sufficient as per the enrolment of students and that a foreign national is not employee in the institution without proper NOC. In terms of Rule 12 of the Rules, conditions for registration are stipulated which essentially requires the record to be maintained; fees to be charged within reasonable limits and that the institution will furnish all relevant information as may be required by the registering authority . There is nothing in the Rules or Ordinance which requires Respondent No.3 to concur with Respondent No.2 on this issue . Registration ensures that the requirements of the Rules and the Ordinance are fulfilled for regulatory compliance. Respondent No.2 as the Higher Education Department is not involved in this process nor does it fall within their mandate. At best Respondent No.2 should ensure that the functions under the Ordinance are complied with and that proper processes are in place.
8. It has also come to light during the course of arguments that the Petitioner along with other private institutions are required to approach Respondent No.3 on a yearly basis for registration. Respondent No.3 issues a registration certificate which is valid for one year. There is nothing in the Rules nor any regulations or any standing operating procedures ("SOPs") for this yearly registration process. It seems a bit odd that Respondent No.3 would register the Petitioner 's institution to carry out a four year degree program yet require annual registration. Essentially the registration is of the institution for the purposes of compliance with the Ordinance. Once an institution is registered, Respondent No.3 can provide a time period for extension in the registration, however there should be rules/ regulations/SOPs for this purpose. Also there are no regulations for the inspections, no SOPs for compliance and nothing to show how inspection is carried out. When confronted with the Rules, Respondent No.3 was unable to explain the manner in which private institutions are inspected and required to rectify the objections. The Rules do not provide for the manner in which objections raised can be cured or removed. As the objective of the law is to register the private institution, Respondent No.3 is obligated to set out a process for registration, provide the required rules and regulations along with SOPs and specify the requirements and time line on the basis of which registration will be carried out. There should be a specified timeframe within which the registration process is completed and there appears to be no justification requiring an annual registration. When confronted with the above, Sakhawat Ali Dogar , Deputy Director (Colleges) was unable to give any reasonable explanation nor could he justify the processes undertaken. It appears that they are done without any comprehensive procedure set out.
Learned Law Officer has relied upon a check list which is specifically for a Graduate four year program and not for any other programs.
9. Therefore in this regard, Respondent No.3 is directed to make regulations and SOPs with reference to the registration process. They are also requir ed to set out a timeline for the purposes of registration. As stated above, there appears to be no justification for annual registration which matter should be considered and a reasonable timeframe should be given within which the existing registration expires and fresh registration has to be undertaken. It is also important to note here that the understanding of the officials of Respondent No.3 with respect to the objective of registering private institutions is negligible. Although the senior officers were present before the Court, no one could explain what procedure or process was undertaken nor could anyone assist the Court on the timeline that followed and the reasons for the delay . Director General when questioned stated that the college could be registered by May 2021. Even this statement is totally negligent as there is no reason to delay the matter until May 2021. If at all Respondent No.3 considers it necessary to carry out another inspection for any private institution it should not take so many months and particularly in this case where the matter has been delayed for more than one and half year totally due to Respondent No.3.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the instant Petition is accepted and Respondent No.3 is directed to immediately register the college of the Petitioner .