' MALIK HAMID SAEED, J.--- In this Constitution Petition, Amir Alam, petitioner, has questioned the legality and propriety of the judgment/order, dated 16-9-1996 of the learned Zilla Qazi and that of the Illaqa Qazi, dated 9-4-1994 with the prayer of declaring the same as against law, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Mst. Jehan Pari, respondent No,1, brought a suit against Amir Alam Khan, her husband, for dissolution of marriage whereas Amir Alam Khan also filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the suits were contested by the parties by submitting written statements.
The parties to the suit during proceedings of the matter showed their willingness before the learned trial Court for referring the matter to Mediator under the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (Nifaz-e-Nizame-Shariah) Regulation, 1994. After obtaining consent of both the parties over the appointment of mediator, the learned trial Court referred the matter to Maulana Kifayatullah. The parties presented themselves before the said Mediator, who in the light of the evidence adduced by both the parties, formed his opinion and delivered the same to the Court. The learned trial Court accepted the suit of the petitioner whereas dismissed the suit of respondent No,
1. The respondent No,1 filed appeal against the judgment/ decree, dated 9-4-1994 of the Illaqa Qazi. The learned appellate Court accepted the appeal of respondent No,1 and granted her decree for dissolution of marriage through Khula'. The petitioner has now impugned the judgment and decrees of the learned Courts below on the ground that the learned Illaqa Qazi and Zilla Qazi both Judges exercised their jurisdiction under Regulation-II of 1994 who are not competent to hear the suit and the appeal in the matter, as it was the jurisdiction of the family Court and the appellate forum provided therein under the West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has failed to convince us that the adjudication of the matter by the Courts established under Regulation-II of 1994 has caused any gross miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. The petitioner himself agreed to the appointment of Mediator in the case and never objected to his appointment. He also raised no objection over the report/opinion of the Mediator. He was also satisfied with the pronouncement of the judgment by the learned trial Court, but when the appellant Court reversed the findings of the learned trial Court, then the petitioner has moved this Court with the plea that even the trial Court was not competent to hear the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show that the learned appellate Court could not legally reverse the findings of the learned trial Court in appeal.
4. In view of the above facts, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise any objection over the jurisdiction of the Courts, which have decided the case keeping in view the evidence on record and exercising their own discretion in the matter. The declaration sought by the petitioner petition cannot, therefore, be granted to him and the writ petition dismissal for the reasons stated above.
' Accordingly, the writ petition in dismissed alongwith order as to costs. In the writ is liable to C.M. No order as to costs.
2000 C LC 1124 Pashawar for Jawaid Nawa Khan Gandapur and Malik Humid Saeed , JJ MUHAMMAD JAMIL and 35 others---Petitioners versus UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR through Registrar, University of Peshawar and 3 others---Respondents Writ Petition No,1348 of 1999, decided on 22nd December, 1999. University of Peshawar Act (II of 1974)- ----S. 31(1)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Constitutional petition---Educational institution---Candidates appeared for the examination of M.Ed. Conducted by the University--- Institution to which such candidates belonged being not affiliated with the University, candidates were not allowed to take the examination---Candidates were allowed to take examination under the direction of High Court passed in a Constitutional petition at their own risk and cost and the result of the candidates was to be subject to the decision of the representation of the said institution by the Syndicate of the University---University Syndicate having rejected the representation for affiliation made by the institution dispute arose with regard to the declaration of the result of the candidates---Validity---Admission granted to the candidates was without affiliation of the institution with the University and the same was in violation of the provisions of the University of Peshawar Act, 1974-When the representation was rejected by the Syndicate, High Court was unable to issue any direction to the University to declare such result of the candidates-- -Matter having already been decided in earlier Constitutional petition, fresh petition was dismissed in limine. [p. 1126] A Qazi Zakiuddin Khan for PetitioneRs, MRs, Nusrat Yasmeen for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 22nd December, 1999.
' MALIK HAMID SAEED, J.-- Muhammad Jamil and 35 others, petitioners, have filed this writ petition for issuing directions to the respondents to declare the result of the petitioners in respect of their examination of Master of Education, held in September/October, 1998.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No,4, Sarhad Institute of Education, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar, started giving training to the Bachelor of Education and the University of Peshawar granted affiliation to the said Institute for B.Ed discipline. The affiliation of the Institute to the discipline of M.Ed. Was, however, deferred till satisfactory result of B.Ed.
3. The respondent No,4, however, started classes of M.Ed. By granting admissions to the petitioners and sent their examination forms to the University authorities, but the same were returned to respondent No,4 on account of non-affiliation of the Institute for M.Ed. Discipline. The respondent No,4 Institute filed Writ Petition No,1198 of 1998 in this Court, wherein pre-admission notice to the respondents was given on 3-9-1998 and under C.M. No,1544 of 1998, the prayer of the respondent No,4 was accepted to the extent that the students of the petitioner's Institute shall appear in the M.Ed. Examination to .Be held on 4-9-1998 at their own risk and costs without prejudice to the merits of the petition. It was under the directions of this Court, that the University Authorities accepted the examination forms of the petitioners and allowed them to take part in the M.Ed. Examination.
Thereafter, the writ petition came up for hearing on pre-admission notice-on 13-5-1999 and the writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:- "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the writ petition is not competent under section 31(4) of the University of Peshawar Act, 1974. The representation of the petitioner has to be decided first by the Syndicate, University of Peshawar which has not yet been decided. We would, therefore, in the circumstances direct the Syndicate, University of Peshawar to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner within a period of one month. The result of candidates who were provisionally allowed to appear in the M.Ed. Examination by this Court vide order, dated 3-9-1998 shall be subject to the decision of the representation by the Syndicate, University of Peshawar. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of alongwith C.Ms."
4. In compliance with the orders of this Court, dated 13-5-1999, the respondents considered the representation of Srahed Institute of Education, Hayatabad, Peshawar, respondent No,4, and observed that the said institute has admitted the students in M.Ed. Classes by violating clause 31(1) of the University of Peshawar Act, 1974 and section 16 of the Affiliation Rules framed under clause 31(3) of the University of Peshawar Act, 1974. Accordingly, the representation was rejected by the Syndicate on 28-6-1999. Hence the present writ petition.
5. Keeping in view the above facts, at present the respondent No,4 Institute is not affiliated with the University of Peshawar for M.Ed. Classes and the students/petitioners have no right to appear in the M.Ed. Examination of the University of Peshawar. The students of the Institute were allowed to take part in the M. Ed. Examination, which were going to be held on 4-9-1998, but at their own cost and risk without prejudice to the merits of the petition, which writ petition was still pending at that time.
The said writ petition stood decided on 13-5-1999 wherein it was specifically mentioned that the result of the candidates who were provisionally allowed to appear in the M.Ed. Examination by this Court vide order, dated 3-9-1998 shall be subject to the decision of the representation by the Syndicate, University of Peshawar. The Syndicate, thereafter, in its meeting held on 28-6-1999 rejected the representation of Sarhad Institute of Education, Peshawar.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is unable to show any good ground for interference in presence of the broad fact that the admission granted to the petitioners in the said Institute was without affiliation of the Institute with the. University of Peshawar for M.Ed. Discipline and it was in violation of certain provisions of the University of Peshawar Act. By now, the representation made by the said Institute has already been rejected by the Syndicate. We, therefore, find ourselves unable to issue any direction to the respondents to declare the result of the petitioners of M.Ed. Examination, for which the petitioners were given permission to appear in the said examination by this Court at their own risk and cost without prejudice to the merits of the case and subject to the decision of the Syndicate on the representation of respondent No,4 which representation has been rejected. The matter has already been decided in the earlier writ petition.
7. This writ petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed in limine alongwith C.M.
Limine.