SA. MANNA N, J.- This Writ Petition has been filed by M. Amin Faruq, Assistant Professor, against order dated 29A1992 of the Registrar University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore by which study leave was refused to him.
2. Briefly, the petitioner was firstly allowed to pursue his Ph.D. Studies at the University of Calafornia Buttley U.SA. At his own expenses and was granted extraordinary leave without pay for one year w.e.f. 1.2.1988. He however could not complete his courses because of serious illness of his mother and came back on 9th April 1988. His unavailed portion of leave was cancelled. For the second time the petitioner was permitted to join his Ph.D. Studies at Georgia Technology Institute U.S A. With effect from lst of September, 1991 by granting him study leave initially for a period of one year at one time. He was allowed to change his institute from Georgia to University of Cambridge U.K.
However, he returned to Pakistan on 15.12.1991 due to serious illness of his mother and father- in-law.
3. For the third time the petitioner applied for study leave from lst September, 1992 to 31.8.1993 on yearly basis on the ground that he was entitled to unavailed period of study leave previously granted to him in 1990-91. This application was strongly recommended by the Chairman Department of Architecture, University of Engineering and Technology to the Vice-Chancellor.
However the case was examined in the office of respondents 1 and 2 with detailed facts and the aforementioned Chairman on 23.8.1992 observed as under:- "In the light of the history of the case, there is no case for the study leave by the applicant."
It appears that on 29.8.1992 the Registrar respondent No.2 observed that "basing upon the latest recommendations of the Chairman Architecture Department duly vetted by the Dean of the faculty, Mr. Amin Faruq Assistant Professor Architecture Department cannot be considered for the grant of study leave. He may kindly be informed accordingly." This was approved by respondent No. 1 Vice-Chancellor University of Engineering and Technology Lahore. The petitioner was then informed by the impugned letter dated 29th August, 1992 that he cannot be granted study leave in view of the past history.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioner was granted study leave on previous two occasions and as the sune could not be availed of on account, of straitened circumstances of the family the petitioner was entitled to unavailed portion of the study leave and the respondents acted without lawful authority in refusing the same. Reliance is place on Kh. Ijaz and another vs. Government of Punjab through Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department (1983 PLC (C.S) 690).
5. Learned counsel for the respondents-University vehemently contends that the petitioner does not possess any legal right for the grant of study leave for the third time on any ground whatsoever and it is the discretion of the University Authorities. He submits that petitioner was granted study leave twice and although it was not availed erf, now there is no legal obligation for the third time to accede to the request of the petitioner. Reliance is placed on University of the Punjab, Lahore vs. Ch. Sardar Ali (1992 S.C.M.R. 1093) to show that the writ petition is not maintainable. Parawise comments on behalf of respondent No.2 are also filed which are in line of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. Various kinds of regular leave are admissible to the University's employees such as (i) leave on average pay (ii) leave on half average pay, (iii) extraordinary leave, (iv) special disability leave, (v) study leave. This is vide Ordinance 6 of the Calendar of the University of Engineering and Technology 1975, Part II, Volume-I page 230.
Then there is Ordinance No.15 according to which leave cannot be claimed as of right when the interests of the University so require. The discretion to refuse or revoke leave of any description is reserved to the authorities empowered to grant it.
Under Sub-para (8) of Ordinance 44(1) relating to the study leave, the syndicate may cancel the study leave granted to University employee and withdraw all the privileges allowed to him in connection with such leave, if the University employee does not show satisfactory progress in his studies, provided that this clause shall not be applicable in case ae University employee's failure to make satisfactory progress was due to illness or other circumstances beyond his control.
7. It is agreed by both the learned counsel that the aforementioned Ordinance/Paras framed by the Syndicate are presently applicable although the University of Engineering and Technology Act 1974 has been amended from time to time.' The leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that it is amply demonstrated that the petitioner could not enjoy his study leave twice because of the illness of his mother and his father-in-law and that the latter even died because of the serious break down of his health. In view of proviso to 44 (8) the study leave, according to the leamed counsel, could not have been refused by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents, however, reiterated that grant of various kinds of teave including the study leave is subject to para 15 where it is clearly stated that the leave cannot be claimed as of right and when the interest of the University so require, discretion to refuse or revoke leave of any description is reserved to the authority empowered to grant it. It is vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was granted study leave twice and it was rightly refused by the University for the present time.
8. I find that para 15 aforementioned has to be read with para 44 of the Calendar. Both these provisions cannot be segregated. The circumstances under which the pitioner could not avail the study leave twice were taken into consideration md the same was refused by the impugned order.
The University authorities refused to grant study leave to the petitioner for the third time by way of their discretion which cannot in any manner be considered to be arbitrary or whimsical in view of para 15 aforementioned.
9. As to the reliance on para 44 (8)(a) the same cannot be pressed into service on the facts and circumstances of the case as obviously the leave has been granted more than once and cow it is claimed for the third time. If it is held that the err loyees are entitled to study leave according to the circumstances obtaining at a relevant time thed the interest of the University is bound to suffer, for which it is established, and every now and then leave on more than one ground will be claimed. It is in these circumstances that the University in their discretion have the power to accept or reject the request of study leave. The order of the respondents refusing to grant study leave to the petitioner for the third time in my opinion is not in any way mala fide or contrary to the aforementioned para. The plea of the leamed counsel for the petitioner that the University authorities were bound to grant study leave to the petitioner for the third time cannot, therefore, be accepted obviously because the various paras/Ordinances of the University Calendar cannot be interpreted against the interests of the University.
10. The facts of the aforementioned cited case of Kh. Ijaz etc., are wholly distinguishable from the present case. It was a case of civil servant and there were instructions of the Federal Government, adopted and implemented by the Provincial Government, that the study leave should be granted to the Sub- Engineers to the Irrigation Department to join their courses of studies for which they had already been admitted on the basis of selection made by the College authorities. It is in these circumstances it was held that the refusal would not be in the public interest and that the same would be in violation of the standing instructions of the Federal Government.
Reliance was placed in the deted case on Ikram Bus Service vs. Board of Revenue (PLD 1963 S.C.
564) to show that the Courts would certainly be reluctant to interfere in the discretionary orders passed by the Executive Authorities provided the same are neither arbitrary nor in abuse of powers of the authority. In the present case the University have refused the study leave keeping in view their own interest. The learned counsel has not been able to show that the petitioner possesses any legal right or the respondents were under a legal obligation to grant study leave for the third time.
The aforementioned cited case, therefore, is of no avail to the present petitioner.
11. By this time the law is well settled that no writ petition is maintainable in case of any violation as to the non-statutory provisions such as Regulations and Ordinances framed by the Syndicate of the University. Reliance is placed by the leamed counsel for the respondents in a case University of the Punjab, Lahore vs. Ch. Sardar Ali (1992 S.C.M.R. 1093) where it is held that such Ordinances do not possess the strength of a statutory provision and in case of any violation the writ petition is not competent. The facts of the present case are not different as the petitioner is trying to enforce certain provisions of the Ordinances where otherwise I do not see any violation.
For foregoing reasons the present writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed in limine.