DR. KHURSHID IOBAL, J.--- Zahid Ullah Khan and his wife Mrs. Khadija, arc respectively principal and vice principal of Azeem Public High School and College situated, situated on the main D.I.Khan Road, in District Bannu. Through the instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, they seek the issuance of an appropriate writ to respondents No.2 to 5 to constitute their school and college as examination hall for the upcoming Board's examination for Grades IX and X.
2. Facts shortly arc that the petitioners have as many as 99 female students, belonging to different areas. They contend that, as usual, for conduction of examinations of students of Class IX and X, the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Bannu (BISE / respondents) constitute the same school as their examination hall.
However, the respondents have declared the Government Higher Secondary School Ismail Khel, as the examination hall for the aforesaid examinations, which are scheduled to commence from 28.04.2023. Their contention is that the examination hall in Ismail Khel is at a long distance, whereas their own school is more accessible to the students. They further contend that according to Chapter-X[I of the relevant Rules titled as "Constitution of Examination Centres", the minimum number of candidates likely to appear in the centre in the written examination is 80 for boys and 45 for girls.
3. We have heard Mr. Rahmat-ul-Haq Khanan Khel Advocate, counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
4. Two points are worth mentioning. Firstly, the declaration of an examination hall is a privilege of the Chairman of the Board, as per the rules referred to above. Rule-3 reads as under: "3. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in these rules, the Chairman shall have the power to constitute a place as a centre of examination under special circumstances on such terms as may be determined by him."
5. Secondly, the petitioners submitted an application to the Controller of the BISE on 11.04.2023 in which they mentioned 74 students of IX Class and 25 of X Class (total 99). They have not mentioned the number of the female students and that those students will suffer if they go to the examination in the school of village Ismail Khel. The total number of the students does not appear to meet the target mentioned in Rule-1 (2) of the Rules, referred to above. The petitioners have not annexed any documentary proof to show that earlier, their school has been declared as centre for the examination.
6. In the case titled as "Khyber Medical University and others Vs Aimal Khan and others" (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 92), it has been held that:
4. It has been time and again held by this Court that courts must sparingly interfere in the internal governance and affairs of educational institutions. It is simply prudent that the courts keep their hands off educational matters and avoid dislodging decisions of the university authorities, who possess technical expertise and experience of actual day to day workings of the educational institutions. Every university has the right to set out its disciplinary and other policies in accordance with law, and unless any such policy offends the fundamental rights of the students or violates any law, interference by the courts results in disrupting the smooth functioning and governance of the university. It is, therefore, best to leave the disciplinary, administrative and policy matters of the universities or educational institutions to the professional expertise of the people running them, unless of course there is a violation of any of the fundamental rights or any law.
5. This self-restraint by the courts in matter of educational institutions is based on the wisdom that academic freedom and institutional autonomy of the universities must be protected and safeguarded. Academic freedom is not merely liberty from restraints on thought, expression, and association in the university, but also that the university should have the freedom to make decisions about the educational matters including disciplinary matters. As "it is the business of a university to provide that atmosphere which is most conducive to speculation, experiment and creation. It is an atmosphere in which there prevail 'the four essential freedoms' of a university; who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught and who may be admitted to study."
7. Although, the facts of the above cited case pertain to an issue arisen in a University, but the principle laid down therein is that the Court should not interfere in the internal governance of an educational institution. This principle is attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. The constitution of an examination hall is the function of the respondents. We are of the view that the constitution of examination hall is the expertise of the respondents, which they should have a right to use in the manner as they deem proper, unless it infringes on the fundamental rights of the students.
8. In the light of the above facts and legal principle, we find no force in the instant writ petition. The same is dismissed in limine.