MUMTAZ ALI MIRZA, J. -- The petitioner, Imran Alam Siddiqi has set up a Study Centre at Wah under the name and style of Ghandara College of Management and Computer Sciences. He informed the respondent No. 1 Allama Iqbal Open University of his having done so and sought approval of the said University for his aforesaid college. With a view to examining the facilities provided by the petitioner in his college for the students to undertake the courses of Management and Computer Sciences, the respondent-University appointed a Committee to inspect the petitioner's college and to submit a report to the University, so that the petitioner's request could be decided on merit. The committee deputed to visit the petitioner's college comprised of the following as its members:-
(i) Dr. Mrs. Parveen Liaqat, Dean Faculty of Sciences.
(ii) Dr. Nazir A. Sanghi, Chairman Computer Sciences Department.
(iii) Mr. Abdul Hameed Khan, Regional Director, Rawalpindi.
(iv) Dr. Arshad Mehmood, Chairman Math Study Department.
(v) Ali Asghar Hasnain, Director Regional Services.
The Committee thus constituted visited the petitioner's college on 21.4.2000 and after physical verification of the various facilities and inspection of premises of the college made a report to the respondent-University to the following effect "The team was received by Imran Alam, Mr. Muhammad Shoaib and Mr. Abdul Basit of the Ghandara College. Following were our observations regarding this visit.
(1) The college signboard showed "Ghandara College of Commerce".
(2) The campus is located on the main road and have easy access for students.
(3) Students were mainly of Commerce, Science and Arts classes. No Computer Science students were on the campus.
(4) There were two computer labs, equipped as under:- Lab-I 06 Pentium 04 486 PCs Lab-2 05 Pentium 4 486 PCs 01 Server Pentium Both the laboratories were without Laboratory & Technical Staff. These labs are only used for simple short courses for computers.
(5) The detailed inspection revealed that about half of the PCs were not operational or of too old configuration and not suitable for BCS Class.
(6) The labs were not air-conditioned furniture and seating arrangements were also substandard.
(7) Class rooms were ample but with little ventilation. These classrooms were occupied by Commerce Students at the moment.
(8) Library was visited. About 700 books were available. However, computer books were only about
40. Even these books were not suitable for BCS level. Quite a few books were old and obsolete.
(9) There was no qualified Librarian there and no record of books was available.
(10) The team repeatedly requested to meet the faculty members, however, not a single faculty member was there.
(11) The management was asked to show any documents which prove that faculty is engaged/hired. Only one appointment letter of Mr. Abid Ghaffar was available with the documents presented to team.
(12) The team requested the Administration to let them contact with the only faculty members whose local phone number was there on the record to ascertain his employment with Ghandara but in vain.
(13) It was however, revealed later on that both faculty members (Mr. Abdul Ghaffar and Mr. Asif Jamil) claimed for Computer Science affiliation are working full time in Islamabad as Government Servants. Their contact numbers were given to Regional Director, Rawalpindi for necessary action at his end.
(14) In short, the college status as per following attributes specially related to computer science is as under:-
(A) Computer lab facilities very weak
(B) Computer Science Faculty Nil
(C) Computer Science Library Highly Substandard
(D) Class rooms & General Facilities Fair
(E) Management Experience in Computer Science Weak In the light of above observations it is unanimously recommended that Ghandara College, Wah Cantt is not suitable for the status of AIOU Approved Study Centre for BCS Classes."
2. Consequent upon the above report submitted by the Committee, the respondent-University did not approve the petitioner's college as a study centre affiliated with the respondent-University. The names of the students which had been submitted by the petitioner Imran Alam Siddiqi to the respondent-University for being admitted to the BCS Class of his college were accordingly allocated by the University to the Paramount College established at Wah Cantt. This decision of the respondent-University to allocate the students allegedly admitted by the petitioner in his college to respondent No. 2, Paramount College, was based on the ground that the petitioner's college was not equipped adequately with the requisite facilities as were necessary for approving it as a study centre under the control and supervision of the respondent-University. The petitioner thus feeling aggrieved of the allocation of his students to Paramount College has instituted the instant Constitution petition for quashing the order of the respondent-University allocating the students to respondent No. 2 i.e. Paramount College and for issuing a direction to the respondent-University for approving the petitioner's college as an approved study centre under the supervision of the respondent-University.
3. Mr. M. Kowkab Iqbal, Advocate appeared for the petitioner while Mr. S.M. Mehmood Saddozai, Advocate appeared for the respondent- Allama Iqbal Open University.
4. The petitioner's learned counsel Mr. M. Iqbal Kowkab, Advocate raised the following contentions for and on behalf of the petitioner:-
(i) That the action of the respondent-University was actuated by bad faith and was ulteriorly motivated inasmuch as the same was based on extraneous reasons and for occasioning financial benefit to respondent No. 2, Paramount College of millions of rupees.
(ii) That the students who had been admitted by the petitioner in his college for the BCS Class could not be allocated to respondent No. 2 i.e. Paramount College.
(iii) That the report submitted by the Committee constituted by the respondent-University was wholly false and fabricated and was against facts.
(iv) That the petitioner had been discriminated against in that while his study centre was not approved by the respondent-University, the said approval was accorded to Paramount College which was also located at Wah and which had the same facilities as were available with the petitioner's college.
5. Mr. S.A. Mehmood Khan Saddozai, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent-University controverted the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and maintained that no study centre could be established by any one without the approval of respondent-University.
That on, the setting up of a study centre and intimation is Sent to the respondent-University by the person setting up the study centre and the University appoints a team of scholars for physical verification of the facilities available at such a study centre and on the report being submitted to it to the effect that the requisite facilities for starting Computer Classes and Classes of Management Course are available with a given study centre, the University accords its approval and it is only then that the person setting up a study centre of the type is able to start the study centre. In the case in hand, learned counsel for the respondent-University maintained that persons of undisputed repute were nominated as members of the Committee and were directed to visit the petitioner's college and after physical verification of the facilities available at the college to submit a report of its findings to the University. Learned counsel for the respondent-University submitted that the report submitted by the Committee to the respondent-University is self-explanatory. The petitioner's college was not found by the Committee equipped with adequate facilities which were necessary for running the BCS Classes. The Committee accordingly recommended not to approve the petitioner's college as a study centre meant for imparting the Computer Training/Education to the students. Learned counsel for the respondent- University further maintained that the members of the Committee who visited the petitioner's college were Highly educated people and incharge of their respective departments at the respondent-University. They had no animus against the petitioner. The report submitted by them to the respondent-University could, therefore, not be lightly taken or brushed aside. Finally the learned counsel for the respondent-University maintained that the petitioner had no vested right to start a study centre without making available the requisite facilities as are approved by the respondent- University.
6. I have considered and evaluated the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record placed before me. The report submitted by the Committee constituted by the respondent-University has been reproduced hereinabove verbatim.
A perusal of the said report would show that the Committee after spot inspection found the facts as they were available at the site and made a report accordingly to the respondent-University.
Now, if the facts were the same as were found to be existing at the site of the petitioner's college, it just cannot lie in the mouth of the petitioner that notwithstanding the said facts his college may be approved as a study centre under the respondent- University. It may be observed that the respondent-University is under a moral and legal obligation to ensure imparting of standard education throughout the country in the various study centres established by various institutions/persons under the control and supervision of the respondent- University. The learned counsel for the petitioner, no doubt in his forceful arguments at the bar, dubbed the report of the Committee as false and fabricated yet failed to take this Court into confidence as to the falsity and the alleged fabrication made in the report by the Committee. He was repeatedly asked to pin- point the precise inaccuracy or mis-statement of facts in the report made by the Committee to the respondent-University but he failed to point out any such thing in the report. The members of the Committee were scholars of high repute in their own right. They had no animus against the petitioner. They could not be expected to submit a report favourable to the petitioner, no matter the requisite facilities were not available in the petitioner's college. The respondent-University committed no illegality in transferring the students who had been admitted by the petitioner in his college to the respondent No. 2 i.e. Paramount College with a view to saving their educational and academic career. There is no warrant in law for striking this action on the part of the respondent- University. Day in and day out, we observe that the standard of education in our country is deteriorating very sharply. Why should it not deteriorate if the facilities in the educational institutions were such as were found to be present in the college of the petitioner. There is a saying in Persian which is to the following effect:- ((Urdu Text))
It aptly applies to the facts and circumstances of the petitioner's college. The quality and standard of facilities available at the petitioner's college being such as was reported by the Committee in its report submitted to the respondent-University which has been reproduced hereinabove and to which no exception can be taken, no direction can be issued to the respondent- University for approving the petitioner's college as a study centre nor can the order of the University allocating the students to respondent No. 2 i.e. Paramount College be struck down. The Constitution petition instituted by the petitioner is wholly misconceived and is devoid of any merit. The same is dismissed accordingly.