1. ' MAMOON KAZI, J.----The petitioner is a student and a candidate for examination to be held by Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan, the respondent in this case. The petitioner is aggrieved by adoption of code system by the respondent for declaration of the results of examinees for examination of the Chartered Accountants. The petitioner, therefore, prays that directions be issued to the respondents either to clarify the code system or to declare the results by showing marks obtained by the candidates.
2. ' The petition has been resisted by the respondent. According to para wise comments filed by the respondent in pursuance of an order of this Court, the policy of the respondents not to disclose the marks secured by the candidates appearing at the examination of the respondent Institute is a uniform policy which is applicable in each and every case. No personal inspection of the answer scripts submitted by, the concerned candidates is allowed. It is also the policy of the Institution not to permit re-counting of marks or rechecking of the examination papers as answer books are examined meticulously at a responsible level and the candidates are informed of their results accordingly.
3. ' It may be pointed out that the respondent Institute has been constituted as a 'body' corporate by virtue of section 3 of the Chartered Accountants (Ordinance X of 1961) which was promulgated to make provisions for the regulation of the profession of Accountants and for establishment of an Institute of Chartered Accountants. The affairs of the respondent Institute are managed by a Council of the Institute also constituted under section 9 of the said Ordinance. Under senction 27 of the said Ordinar.;,e, the Council has been vested with powers to make bye-laws. By a Notification published in the Gazette, to carry out the object of the Ordinance, such bye-laws were framed on 1st November, 1983, with the approval of the Federal. Government.
4. ' Although Mr. Khawaja Gharibnawaz Dhakkawalla has not been able to invite our attention either in the Ordinance or in the Bye-Laws framed thereunder to any provision regulating the conduct of examinations which are to be conducted by the respondent the contention of Mr. Ali Ahmed Tariq, learned counsel for the respondent nevertheless is that under Bye-Law No,74, such powers have been entrusted to one Examination Committee appointed under the said Bye-Law.
5. ' The first question which requires to be determined is in regard to the maintainability of the present petition. Mr. Ali Ahmed Tariq has argued that the respondent is not a person, within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution, which pertorms functions either in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province. Reliance in this connection has been placed by the learned counsel upon the case of Salahuddin and 2 others v. Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Ltd., Takht Bhai and 10 others PLD 1975 SC 244. The relevant observations made in this case, which appear at p.257 of the report are as follows:-- "However, private organizations or persons, as distinguished from Government or semi- Government agencies and functionaries cannot be regarded as persons performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province simply for the reason that their activities happen to be regulated by laws made by the State. Accordingly a joint stock company incorporated under the Companies Act, for the purpose of carrying on commercial or industrial activity for the benefits of its shareholders, cannot be regarded as a person performing State functions, just for the reason that its functioning is regulated by law or that the distribution of its manufactured products is subject to Governmental control in the public interest. The primary test must always be whether the functions entrusted to the organization or person concerned are indeed functions of the State involving some exercise of sovereign or public power, whether the control of the organization vests in a substantial manner in the hands of Government and whether the bulk of the funds is provided by the State. If these conditions are fulfilled, then the person including a body politic or body corporate, may indeed be regarded as a person performing functions in connection. with the affairs of the Federation or a Province, otherwise not."
6. ' Mr. Ali Ahmed Tariq has pointed out that according to section 3 of Ordinance X of 1961, the respondent Institute has been constituted as a body corporate by the name of Institution of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan. Referring to the primary test laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the above case for determination of the question, whether the person is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court, the learned counsel has argued that by virtue of section 9 of Ordinance X of 1961 the control and management of the respondent does not vest in the Government but the same vests in the Council constituted under the said Ordinance. The learned counsel has also referred to section 17 of the Ordinance, which indicates that "there shall be established a fund under the management and control of the Council into which shall be paid all monies received by the Institution and out of which shall be met all expenses and liabilities properly incurred by the Institution." Consequently, according to the learned counsel, none of the tests, laid down by the above judgment of the Supreme Court appears to have been fulfilled in the present case. Therefore, the respondent is not a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the State, and as such this petition is not maintainable. Although we are fully inclined to agree with Mr. Ali Ahmed Tariq in this regard, but we also find that the petitioner has no case even on merits.
7. ' Admittedly, the respondents are following a uniform policy by declaring results of various candidates on the basis of a code system. This is in accordance with the policy formulated by the Examination Committee. Mr. Gharibnawaz Dhakkawalla has failed to invite our attention to any of the provisions of either the said Ordinance or the Bye-laws framed thereunder which, according to him, have been violated by the respondents while framing such policy. As has been earlier pointed out, the policy has been framed by the respondents in accordance with Bye-Law No,74. The said bye-law vests the Examination Committee with full powers to frame any reasonable policy in regard to holding of examinations, etc. In view of the fact that there appears to be no clog for the Examination Committee to frame any examination policy, we do not find that the said comniittee cannot frame a policy according to the requirements of the respondent Institute, Mr. Ali Ahmed Tariq has invited our attention to Bye-law No,6(2) which indicates that every person becoming a member of the institute shall undertake to be bound by the Ordinance, the bye-laws and the pronouncements issued by the Council from time to time. In any case, we fully agree with Mr. Ali Ahmed Tariq that the petitioner has no vested right to compel the respondent Institute to either formulate or follow a particular policy in connection with holding of examinations by them.
8. Reference in this connection may also be made to Province of Punjab and another v. Miss Khaqan and others PLD 1985 Lah. 300, Naeem Mirza v. Government of Sindh through Secretary, Department of Health, Sindh Secretariat 1987 CLC 1487 and Sajid Ran and 3 others v. The Commissioner, Quetta Division and 9 others PLD 1973 Kar.
9. 332.
10. ' In the result, we find no force in the petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.