1. ' MUKHTAR AHMED JUNEJO, J.--This petition has been filed by 22 petitioners with following prayers:
(i) That the respondents be directed to allow and accommodate the petitioners to continue and pursue their studies of "B.Sc. (Hons.) Computer Sciences", I.Tifabad, Hyderabad without any break or gap and make proper management for the functioning of the same, forthwith.
(ii) In the alternate the petitioners be allowed and accommodated in some other institution of equal level and equal course from the beginning of Second Semester, forthwith.
(iii) Any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. ' Admittedly the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad (respondent No,2) invited through press, applications from suitable candidates for admission in College of Computer Sciences for Degree course programme in Computer Technology commencing from February, 1992. There was aptitude test on 17-1-1992 for the candidates interested in taking education in the newly set up College of Computer Sciences, which started functioning in a hired bungalow taken on rent from its owner. Necessary stationery for the said college was printed at the cost of Rs,17,000 paid by respondent No,2. After aptitude test 'and processing, 50 students including the petitioners were selected, out of the list of 400 candidates, for admission to the said College in the Degree course. Students selected for said Degree course in Computer Technology deposited their fee in account of the Respondent No,2 in a Bank. After commencement of education in said College in full swing there was final examination for the First Semester in July 1992. Subsequently, the college was closed which was great shock and surprise to the petitioners, as averred. Hence this petition.
3. ' Comments were called from the respondent No,2. The comments show that the College of Computer Sciences was established by the respondent No,2, under the instructions of the then Education Minister, Government of Sindh, who was Controlling Authority for respondent No,2 on 6- 5-1991 viz. The date of instructions. Some amount was spent towards establishment of said college, and after completion of all the formalities 50 students were admitted in the Ist Semester starting from 15-2-1992. It appears that Controlling Authority for the respondent No,2 was changed and the Governor of Sindh assumed the power as Controlling Authority on 22-2-1992. On 24-2-1992 the Governor of Sindh directed the respondent No,2 not to release the funds, earmarked for opening College of Computer Sciences, as the same were frozen. Consequently, the funds received from respondent No,2 were returned and deposited in account of the respondent No,2 and the articles purchased for the proposed college were deposited with the respondent No,2 under instructions of the Governora of Sindh. Respondent No,2 took stand that it had acted under orders of the competent Controlling Authority.
4. ' Mr. Syed Zaki Muhammad, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that there was a scheme for opening of the College of Computer Sciences and such scheme was acted upon and 50 students were admitted in the college and this had created vested rights in favour of the students admitted in the college, who had even deposited the fees. It was further argued that the college was functioning smoothly and one year of the students was consumed and all of a sudden there was closure of the college and this closure was arbitrary and in utter haste. It was next argued that before closing of the college none of the students was given any notice or was heard and that this was not a private college which could be closed at random. After expressing such view, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners had been condemned un-heard. It was also argued that once a scheme was acted upon, it cannot be abandoned and that teaching and non-teaching staff was also appointed for the college and offices were set up. In support learned counsel for the petitioners cited the cases of:
(i) Mian Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust, PLD 1969 SC 223; (ii) Muntizma Committee, Al- Mustafa Colony (Regd.), Karachi and others v. Director, Katchi Abadis, Sindh and others PLD 1992 Kat. 54; (iii) 1hsanullah Bajwa v. The Chairman, City and Regional Planning Department University - of Engineering and Technology, Lahore and others 1991 M LD 1688; (iv) Muhammad Farooq M.
5. Memon v. Government of Sindh through its Chief Secretary, Karachi 1986 CLC 1408; (v) Ghulam Mustafa v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another 1982 CLC 1665.
6. ' Mr. Syed Ahsan Ali Shah, learned counsel for the respondent No,2 argued that respondent No,2 was creation of the Sindh Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Ordinance, 1972 and that the powers of respondent No,2 Board were defined under section 11 of said Ordinance. Section 11 of said Ordinance shows that a Board shall have power to organise, regulate, develop and control Intermediate Education or Secondary Education or both, as the case may be. On the basis of section 11, Mr. Syed Ahsan Ali Shah argued that establishment of Degree College for Computer Sciences or for any other course, was beyond the scope of the Board, and that there was no statutory duty cast upon the respondent No,2 to run Degree College for Computer Sciences. In respect of the amount spent by the Board, the same was said to have been realized and it was added that no funds were released for the Advisory Authority appointed for the College. It was next argued that the respondent No,2 had no power to open or close a college because it was primarily a body for conducting examinations. Lastly it was argued that the college in question was already closed and hence there was no occasion for issue of injunction.
7. ' Mr. Abdul Latif Memon, AA.-G. Supported the contentions of respondent No,2 and argued that even the Government of Sindh cannot be forced to run a college if it had decided to close it.
8. ' The authorities cited on behalf of the petitioners are to be discussed. In the case of Mian Fazal Din, PLD 1969 SC 223 it was held that the right considered sufficient for maintaining a proceeding in writ jurisdiction is not necessarily a right in the strict juristic sense but it is enough if the applicant discloses that he had a personal interest in the performance of the legal duty which if not, performed or performed in a manner not permitted by law, would result in the loss of some personal benefit or advantage or the curtailment of a privilege or liberty or franchise. In the instant case non-functioning of the College of Computer Sciences would not result in the curtailment of a privilege or liberty or franchise of the petitioners. In the cited case the person who invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction had purchased a piece of land just opposite to the place where Lahore Improvement Trust proposed to set up a Market place and alteration of such scheme by Lahore Improvement Trust was held to have deprived the said person of. The facility he had hoped for as observed. Case of Mian Fazal Din, was followed in the case of Ihsanullah Bajwa (1991 M LD 1688) where the observations made in the case of Mian Fazal Din were reproduced. This was a case where the Government of Pakistan invited nominations for the grant of scholarship under the Central Overseas Training Scheme from the various Universities through the U.G.C. It was stipulated by the Government that the merit of the candidates should be evaluated strictly in accordance with certain criteria. Pursuant to that, a department of the University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore recommended an Associate Professor as a principal candidate and a lecturer as an alternate candidate. But contrary to that the University Grants Commission, recommended the Lecturer as a principal candidate and the Associate Professor as the alternate candidate. The latter invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of Lahore High Court in the matter. The High Court of Lahore took view that the Associate Professor having been deprived to scholarship for consideration which has no relevance to the criteria for eligibility, discretion exercised by the authorities in refusing to grant scholarship, was arbitrary and was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. No such question arises in the instant case. In the case of Muntizma Committee, AlMustafa Colony (Regd.), Karachi and others PLD 1992 Kar. 54 it was held that the condition precedent to the granting of any relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan depends on existence of a fundamental or legal right of a person and the infr4gement of such a right. It was next held that a person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to perform relating to that right. It was further held that an aggrieved party within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution does not necessarily mean a person having a strict legal right, as a person who, is deprived of a benefit privilege etc. By an illegal act or omission, can be, considered as an aggrieved person. In said case occupants of a town sought direction to the K.D.A. Not to disturb them. In the case of Muhammad Farooq M.
9. Memon, 1986 CLC 1408 it was held that a vested right having been created in favour of a party, denial thereof would justify direction by the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction to set right the wrong. This was a petition by a person put at Serial No,9 in the list of successful candidates for the post of Civil Judges, but was deprived of appointment order. In the case of Ghulam Mustafa, 1982 CLC 1665 the petitioner was declared successful in an examination and was directed to report for training but was not allowed to continue his training and the view taken was that once right accrued in favour of the petitioner, the appointing authority was left with no power to recall order for his training. In this way none of the authorities cited on behalf of the petitioners helps them.
10. In the present case, we are clear in our mind that no vested rights accrued to the petitioners if they sought admission in a college which was opened by the respondent No,2 under illegal orders of the then Education Minister as Controlling Authority. The imparting of education for Degree course does not come within the functions of the respondent No,2 defined by the provisions contained in said Ordinance of 1972. Said Ordinance does not permit respondent No,2 to run any Institute for imparting education in Computer Sciences to the Degree students. There is force in the contention of learned AA.-G. That the respondent No,2 or the Government of Sindh, cannot be forced to run an Institute, which they have decided to close down. Opening of a Degree college for Computer Sciences was beyond the powers of the respondent No,2 given to it by the said Ordinance. In a Constitution Petition this Court cannot perpetuate an illegality which has taken place.
11. For the foregoing reasons there is no substance in this Constitution Petition which stands dismissed in limine.
2. As the main petition has been dismissed this application has become infructuous and it stands dismissed.