MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J:- Through the instant writ petition the petitioner, Zafarullah Shaheen, impugns (i) the decision dated 19.02.2019 taken by the Review Committee of the National University of Modern Languages ("NUML") to recommend that the petitioner be awarded an M.Phil degree as he was unable to complete all formalities for the award of a Ph.D. degree by 31.01.2019, and (ii) letter dated 27.02.2019 from NUML informing the petitioner about the decision of the Review Committee.
2. The petitioner was enrolled in M.Phil Programme leading to Ph.D. in English Literature in the Session 2010 bearing registration No.497 MPhil/Ling/Jan/10-46. The petitioner claims to have successfully completed his Ph.D. thesis on 17.07.2017. The petitioner also asserts that a plagiarism check of the Ph.D. thesis was conducted on 19.07.2017 after which the petitioner was asked to re- submit the thesis as it showed similarity index of 27% against the maximum permissible index of 19% prescribed by the Higher Education Commission ("HEC"). The petitioner also claims to have re- submitted the thesis with a similarity index of 16%. The petitioner claims to have received his foreign evaluation reports on 16.04.2018 and 15.05.2018. The local evaluation reports are stated to have been given to him on 07.06.2018, 08.07.2018 and 19.12.2018.
3. The petitioner blames NUML for wasting one and a half year by delaying the approval of a topic for the petitioner and not appointing his supervisor. It was not until 18.02.2014 that Dr. Ayaz Afsar gave his consent to become the petitioner's supervisor. In short the petitioner asserts that the delay in the submission of his thesis was entirely attributable to the delay on NUML's part to determine the topic for his Ph.D. and to approve the change of his supervisor.
4. Vide letter dated 22.01.2019, NUML called the petitioner for his Ph.D. defence. The petitioner appeared before the Defence Committee on 23.01.2019 after which he was informed that major changes had been recommended in the evaluation report of the thesis and that the petitioner had to re-appear for a re-defence after incorporating the changes within two months. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed by NUML vide letter dated 27.02.2019 that since he had not completed all the formalities regarding his thesis by 31.01.2019, it had been decided to award him an M.Phil degree. Aggrieved by the said letter, the petitioner assailed the same by filing the instant petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after narrating the facts leading to the filing of the instant petition, submitted that Rule 5.31 of the Examination Rules-2018 provides that a student failing in the first attempt of defence may be given another chance on the recommendation of the Thesis Defence Committee ("TDC"); that the said Rule also provides that TDC can reject the thesis without giving a second chance if the performance of the student is extremely poor; that after TDC evaluated the petitioner's thesis on 23.01.2019, it did not find the petitioner's performance to be extremely poor, however it was decided that a re-defence be carried out by incorporating changes in his thesis; that the petitioner was not just required to re-appear before TDC within two months after incorporating the changes in his thesis, but he was also orally informed that the thesis had been approved; that instead of giving an opportunity to the petitioner to re-appear for a re- defence, he was informed vide letter dated 27.02.2019 that he would be awarded an M.Phil degree and not a Ph.D. degree; and that the delay in the completion of the Ph.D. degree is not attributable to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the writ petition to be allowed in terms of the relief sought therein.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for NUML submitted that Regulation 5.3 of the Regulations for Examinations-2001 as approved by the Board of Governors of NUML on 15.11.2001 provides that the total duration of the Ph.D. Programme is three to eight years; that Regulation 5.14(i) provides that if a student fails to submit his final thesis after fulfilling all formalities despite availing extension by the end of 12th Semester, his case will be referred to the Board of Advanced Studies and Research ("BASR") for dismissal; that BASR, in its 7th meeting held on 28.12.2018, considered the ongoing cases of Ph.D. of several students including that of the petitioner; that the decision taken by BASR with respect to the petitioner was that all formalities including the notification are to be completed by 31.01.2019; that the said decision was in the knowledge of the petitioner since it had been placed on the notice board; that since the petitioner did not complete his Ph.D. by submitting a thesis approved by TDC by the deadline of 31.01.2019, the decision not to award him a Ph.D. degree does not suffer from any legal infirmity; and that as the petitioner did not complete his Ph.D. degree within the stipulated period of eight years, he has no legal basis to seek a direction for allowing him to incorporate changes in his Ph.D. thesis after the said deadline. Learned counsel for NUML prayed for the writ petition to be dismissed.
7. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. The facts leading to the filing of the instant petition have been set out in sufficient detail in paragraphs 2 to 4 above and need not be recapitulated.
8. The sole ground on which the Review Committee of NUM L decided to award an M.Phil degree and not a Ph.D. degree was that the petitioner had not completed all formalities for submitting a thesis approved by TDC by the deadline of 31.01.2019. The said deadline was fixed by BASR in its 7th meeting held on 28.12.2018 when it examined inter alia the petitioner's ongoing Ph.D. case. The meeting of BASR was chaired by the Rector and attended by the Director General, Deans, Directors, Head of Departments and Coordinators.
9. After the petitioner submitted his Ph.D. thesis, the Ph.D. defence was held by TDC on 23.01.2019.
The position taken by NUML in its written comments was that the petitioner was not able to pass the defence, resulting in the petitioner's case being placed before the Review Committee. The Review Committee is said to have taken into account the petitioner's evaluation reports and his poor performance during the defence and recommended him for the award of the M.Phil degree. In fact perusal of the report of TDC shows that the petitioner's case was approved for a re-defence. It is an admitted position that by the deadline of 31.01.2019 the petitioner did not submit his thesis for a re- defence. This caused NUML to decide not to issue him a Ph.D. degree.
10. Indeed Regulation 5.3 in Chapter-5 of the Regulations of Examionation-2001 ("the 2001 Regulations") provides that the "total duration of Ph.D. Program is 3-8 years." The contesting parties are in unison on their submission that Regulation 5.3 has been part of the 2001 Regulations right from the time when the said Regulations were approved by the Board of Governors of NUML on 15.11.2001. This Court cannot re-write Regulations of an educational institution which were approved by its Board of Governors. This Court, in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction, can also not give a petitioner an exemption from the applicability of any of the said Regulations. The petitioner started his Ph.D. programme in January, 2011. The eight years during which he should have completed his Ph.D. in every respect expired in January, 2019. If this Court was to issue a writ of mandamus directing NUML to permit the petitioner to submit his re-defence it would not be without violence to Regulation 5.3 ibid.
11. Regulation 5.14(i) provides that if a student fails to submit his final thesis after fulfilling all formalities despite availing extension by the end of 12th Semester, his case will be referred to BASR for dismissal. The petitioner's 12th semester ended in December, 2016, whereafter the petitioner's case was referred to BASR, which had required the petitioner to submit his thesis latest by 15.03.2017. Email dated 03.03.2017 from NUML informing the petitioner about BASR's said decision is on the record. Vide email dated 30.05.2017, the petitioner was warned that if he did not submit his thesis by 14.06.2017, his name would be struck off from the roll of NUML without further notice. Finally BASR, in its 7th meeting held on 28.12.2018, considered the ongoing cases of Ph.D. of several students including that of the petitioner, and decided that all formalities regarding the petitioner's Ph.D. programme were to be completed by 31.01.2019. The petitioner did appear before the Review Committee for the defence of his thesis but was not able to get it cleared.
12. Based on the documents on the record, it is my view that the petitioner did not take seriously the repeated warnings of NUML to complete his Ph.D. by the different deadlines that had been fixed.
The petitioner ought to have taken BASR's decision taken in its meeting dated 28.12.2018 seriously by submitting his thesis well before the deadline bearing in mind that there may be a requirement for a re-defence. The mere fact that a re-defence was required in the petitioner's case would neither do away with the deadline of 31.01.2019 imposed pursuant to BASR's decision dated 28.12.2018 nor make the requirement of Regulation 5.3 inapplicable.
13. As regards the petitioner's defence that NUML had delayed the approval in the change of the petitioner's topic for Ph.D. as well as his supervisor, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any provision of the 2001 Regulations which required such changes to be approved by NUML.
14. Now, in the given circumstances no matter how compassionate this Court may feel towards the petitioner, since no violation of the statute or the 2001 Regulations was demonstrated by the petitioner, this Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of NUM L contained in the impugned letter dated 27.02.2019. This is so because educational matters like instant one are best left to elite members of faculty who possess technical expertise and experience of actual day to day workings of the educational institutions. Reference in this regard may be made to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Khyber Medical University Vs. Aimal Khan" (PLD 2022 SC 92) wherein it was inter alia held as follows:- "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."
Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hafsa Habib Qureshi Vs. Ameer Hamza (PLD 2024 SC 789), has held inter alia that the Courts may interfere with the decisions taken by the university authorities when they "exceed the defined scope of their authority or act in violation of the statutes." Furthermore, in the case of Aina Haya Vs. Principal Peshawar Modern Girls High School (2023 SCMR 198), it was held as follows:-
3. Courts must sparingly interfere in the affairs of academic institutions Hamoodur Rahman, J. speaking for this Court in Zakir Ahmed case held that "...we are not unmindful of the necessity of maintaining discipline in educational institutions... where the maintenance of discipline is essential for the orderly conduct of the institution... nor are we unmindful of the fact that persons in charge particularly of educational institutions must be given the fullest authority to correct those placed in their charge in the same manner as a parent or guardian would be able to do." It is, therefore, best to leave the disciplinary, administrative and policy matters of educational institutions to the professional expertise of the people running them, unless of course there is a blatant violation of any of the fundamental rights or the Law."
15. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the instant petition, which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.