1. CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.- The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises arc as follows:- The petitioners claimed to be untrained teachers of Government recognized school with the alleged qualification to appear in the PTC. Examination as private candidates. Their prayers in the matter have been refused by the respondents and they have invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to get the proposed relief that they are entitled to appear as untrained teachers in the said examination. The petitioners appeared in the. Examination under the directions of this Court and results in some of the cases were provisionally declared under the direction of this Court subject to the ultimate decision of the writ petitions. The comments have been sent by the Chairman of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan, who has expressed therein that according to Notification dated 8-5-1993 the petitioners being the untrained teachers of the private registered school are not entitled to appear as private candidates for the said examination.
2. The leamed counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of the respondent is against the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. The leamed counsel further argued that petitioners although appeared in the said examination under the directions of this Court but vested rights have accrued to them, therefore, writ petition may be accepted.
3. The leamed counsel for the respondents contended that action of respondents is in accordance with law and is not in violation of the fundamental rights and reasonable classification is permissible under the Constitution. The relevant Notifications are reproduced hereunder for ready reference: Notification No. SO (PEC 6-10/92. In supersession of Notification No, SO (PI) 5-1/82 dated March, 1987 the Government of the Punjab has decided to withdraw the facility already provided to the in- service untrained teachers working in Government/Municipal/Registered Schools/Institutions to appear as private candidates in PTC/CT/OY examination.
(2) The untrained teachers working in the above said institutions may, however, qualify these courses from Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad as permissible under their Rules. They would however, be not allowed to appear in the examination conducted by the Education Department.
4. TANWIR AHMAD EDUCATION SECRETARY.
5. DATED LAHORE THE 12th March, 1993.
6. Notification No. SO(PI) 5-1/82. In supersession of this Departments Notification of even number dated 4-2-1985, 17-2-1986 and 21-8-1986, the Government of the Punjab has decided to allow, the in service untrained teachers working in Government/Municipal/Registered School/Institutions) to appear as private candidates in PTC, OT and CT. Examinations for at least 9 months in the above categories of schools.
(2) It is further laid down that those possessing matriculation certificates will be eligible to appear in PTC examination. Persons having passed Matriculation along with "Fazil Examination' will be eligible to appear in OT examination and person possession FA-F.Sc. Certificates of the Boards of Education (Secondary and Technical) will be eligible to appear in C.T. Examination.
7. Dated: Lahore the 30 March, 1987.
8. IWAN KHAN EDUCATION SECRETARY Notification No. SO (BOARDS) 1-131/92. The Controlling Authority of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education, has been pleased to decide that henceforth PTC, CTS OT and Arts and Crafts Examinations which were previously being conducted by their respective Directorate of Education (Schools) would now be conducted by the respective Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education in the Punjab under the following conditions:-
(i) The Boards would conduct examination of PTC/CT of those students only, who are admitted in the Govt. Institutions.
9. The private students would not be eligible for the said examination.
(ii) Syllabus and courses of studies will remain same.
(iii) Examination fee for PTC would be charged equal to the fee of Matriculation Examinate.
10. Similarly, the candidate for CT examination would pay e animation fee equal to the fee being charged from the students of FA/F.Sc.
(iv) Examination -schedule would however be determined by the respective Boards in consultation with the respective Boards and Directorate of B. Education (Schools).
11. BY. ORDER OF THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY.
12. EDUCATION SECRETARY.
13. Dated: Lahore the 18th May, 1993.
14. Notification. No. SO (BOARDS) 1-131/92. In continuation of this Department's Notification of even - number dated 18-5-199V the Controlling Authority of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education has been pleased to allow the in service trained PTC teachers to take CT, OT and Arts and Crafts examinations conducted by the respective Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education in the Punjab.
15. BY ORDER OF THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY TANWIR AHMAD KHAN Notification No. SO. BOARDS 1-131/92. The controlling Authority of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate & Secondary Education/Government of the Punjab has been pleased to allow the in service untrained teachers working in Govt. Schools (Provincial) Federal, Local Body (Metropolitan Corporation and Town Committees) to appear as private candidates in CT, OT, PTC and Arts and Crafts examination to be determined by the concerned authority.
16. BY ORDER OF THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY.
17. TANWIR AHMED, EDUCATION SECRETARY.
5. In the aforesaid notifications the untrained teachers working in Government recognized Schools have not been included. The material point to be decided in these writ petitions is, whether positioners are entitled to appear as private candidates in the said examination or not?
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel for the parties.
18. The Controlling Authority vide Notification dated 18-5- 1993 that respondent/Board would conduct examination of PTC, CT of those, students only, who are admitted in the Government Institutions, private students would not be eligible for the said examination. The direction of the Controlling Authority of such nature are binding on the Board by virtue of Section 12(6) of Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976 and amended Ordinance 1985, therefore, the direction of the Controlling Authority are in accordance with law. It is prerogative of the Controlling Authority to take a policy decision and frame the rules. No doubt Govt, of the Punjab allowed the in service untrained teachers working in Government/Municipal Registered (Schools) Institutions to appear as private candidate in PTC, CT and OT examination, vide Notification dated 30-3-1987. This policy was changed vide Notification dated 18- 5-1993 that untrained teachers are eligible to appear who are admitted in the Govt. Institution and private students would not be eligible to appear in the said examination. It is pertinent to mention here that the decisioiis. Taken by respondent No.3 fall within the realm of policy making, and in all such s made must conform to the policy decisions of the Government. Accordingly, the amendment made in the policy by virtue of above mentioned notifications signified a change in policy and the petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to appear in the examination because of the change in policy and pot because of any other reason. On these facts it was not possible to subscribe to the proposition that a writ would lie against the authority so as to have the effect of defeating the policy competently made by the Government.
19. The Court has only power to interpret the law as is held by the Supreme Court in Zia-ur-Rahman's case (PLD 1973 SC 49). Because our Constitution consists of trichotomy. The Govt, is the sole arbitrator in exercise of its Executive Authority, It is pertinent to mention here that policy was changed much before the examination conducted by the respondents under the said policy. The petitioners submitted their admission forms which were refused on the basis of the said change.
20. Therefore, no vested right accrued to the petitioners. The notification came into field oh 18-5- 1993 admittedly, petitioners took their examination subsequent to the said notification and were, therefore, governed by the same. The petitioners cannot claim as of right that they should continue to the governed by the Notification dated 30-3-1987. This view finds support from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miss Sultana Khokhar and two others v. University of the Punjab (PLD 1962 SC 35).
21. The petitioners cannot claim as of right that they should continue to be governed by r the Notification dated 30-3-1987 prevalent at the time of their joining service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miss Sultana Khokhar's case was pleased to observed that candidates have not' vested that they must be examined in accordance necessarily with the provisions of a Statute, Ordinance, or regulation which was prevalent at the time of their embarking upon studies of their respective course. It is basic and fundamental principle of law that reasonable classification is permissible under the Constitution and the petitioners counsel failed to point out any fundamental right which has been violated by the respondents. Be that as it may, notification do not appear to be unreasonable or discriminatory and petitioners are not entitled to exercise discretion in their favour, therefore, the contention of the leamed counsel for the petitioners has no force. The writ petition is not - maintainable as the respondents did not violate any rule Qr regulation. The right must be based on law . Therefore, in the absence of any law the petitioners have no vested right, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable, on the ground that no rule/law of the respondents having been, violated, the issuing of a writ would amount, to an interference with the internal autonomy and functioning of the respondentst for this, support is sought from "R. v. Dunseath"
22. (1950) S AER 741) Thome v. University of London 1966 2 AER 33. The impugned action pot permitting the petitioners fo sit in the examination was thus quite justified on law and facts. The petitioners cannot make any legitimate grievance against it. I am fortified by thd unreported judgment in which these Notifications were considered titled as Shagufta Parveen v. Chairman Board of Intermediate Education etc. (W.P. No. 4889/94), which was dismissed on 12-11-1995.
23. As a result of what has been discussed above, the petitions have failed to make out any case for interference in writ jurisdiction, therefore, this writ petition failed and dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the petitioners have appeared in the examination keeping in view the circumstances of the present case the petitioners shall approach to respondent No.3 who is directed to consider their case sympathetically in a parental jurisdiction as hardship cases.