RANA BHAGWAN DAS, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, D.I. Khan Bench, dated 19-10-2000 whereby Constitution Petition No,158 of 2000 filed by the petitioner alongwith another identical petition was dismissed involving the common questions of law and facts.
2. Petitioner being a retired Professor from the Department of Health and Physical Education, Gomal University, D.I.Khan, after his superannuation started a private educational institution under the name and style of Lucky College of 'Education and Research at Lakki Marwat in August, 1998. This college was affiliated with Gomal University for B.Ed. Classes only vide University's notification dated 1-1-1999 subject to terms and conditions specified therein. Subsequently, college introduced M.Ed.
Classes and also intended to start Junior Diploma in Physical Education (JDPE) classes and for such affiliation applied to the University. After some 'persuasion through letters this request was turned down by the University authorities vide letter dated 25-11-1999. It is not clear from the record as to the fate of M.Ed. Classes as no further steps were taken by the petitioner but the issue of non- affiliation in respect of JDPE course remained under hot pursuit. It is on record that besides petitioner's college there were some other institutions who allowed admissions to the students of JDPE course without affiliation with the University and one of the college authorities filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge; D.I.Khan and obtained an order directing the University to issue Roll Numbers and allow the students of the said college to appear in the ensuing examination scheduled to be held on 15-1-2000. In order to obviate avoidable legal complications and agitation from the students, because many other institutions had also extended admission to the JDPE students without the approval of the University, a meeting of Acting Vice-Chancellor/Commissioner, D.I.Khan and the Additional Commissioner, D.I. Khan was arranged on 14-1-2000 in which it was agreed in principle that the Controller of Examinations shall adopt a uniform policy in issuing Roll Numbers to the students of colleges whose affiliation was in dispute. In this back-drop many students were successful in getting Roll Numbers and appearing at the examination but ultimately the conduct of such examination and its result was cancelled by the University vide notification dated 5-4-2000 which was communicated to all concerned including the petitioner. This act of the respondents was, .However, was not questioned by any college. It appears that in due course of time second term examination of JDPE course was proposed to be held and the students through their respective institutions/non-affiliated colleges submitted their examination forms but they were not issued Roll Numbers though the examinations were scheduled for 11-8-2000. Petitioner was, therefore, obliged to file a Writ Petition in the Peshawar High Court, D.I.Khan Bench, impugning the act of the University and denying admittance to second term of the JDPE examination. As the petitioner had not assailed the cancellation of examination of first term and cancellation of result communicated vide notification dated 5-4-2000 in the prayer clause relief was cleverly couched in the terms as follows:- ...Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to declare the impugned acts etc. Of respondents as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Further the respondents may be directed to act in the matter in accordance with law and to declare students first term result and also entertain admission forms for second terms examination so as to enable them to continue their study in accordance with law and rules."
3. As observed, learned High Court at the hearing of the the same for the reasons, inter alia, that the petitioner failed to assail the act of non-affiliation for the purpose of JDPE course as well as cancellation of examination for first term duly communicated vide letter dated 25-11-1999 and notification dated 5-4-2000 before the Senate of the University; that the petitioner was not clear as to the precise nature of the relief claimed by him and lastly that he did not approach the Court with clean hands.
4. At the hearing, Mr. Khushdil Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same arguments as were advanced before the High Court. We have examined the record and carefully analysed the impugned judgment. First of all the petitioner was declined affiliation for the purpose of instruction for JDPE course in clear terms as far back as 25-11-1999 but he did not assail such decision of the University by way of appeal before any forum prescribed under the Gomal University Act, 1974 nor did he challenge it through any other legal proceedings. It was by way of expediency and to avoid legal complications in the back-drop of an interim order issued by a Civil Court that the University Authorities issued Roll Numbers to the students of non- affiliated colleges with a view to maintain the principle of equality and consistency: This step was retraced through notification dated 5-4-2000 whereby the conduct of first term examination was cancelled. The petitioner kept silent and neither pressed the issue any longer before the Senate of the University nor before any Court of law. It was after lapse of more than three months when Roll Numbers for second term examinations were not issued by the University that he invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court without realizing that the decisions earlier taken by the University held the field and had attained finality.
5. When asked to clarify the position and to account for complete complacency in the matter learned counsel referred to ground 'A' on page 6 of the Memorandum of Writ Petition in which he had raised this issue. Be that as it may, this belated attempt on the part of the petitioner would not wipe out the gross negligence and inaction on his part for a considerably long time. With regard to absence of challenge to the orders and letters referred to hereinabove, learned counsel insisted that these were included in the prayer clause though no specific declaration appears to have been sought which may only reflect upon ingenuity of the petitioner.
6. There is another aspect of the case. Universities have always been considered to be centres of high excellence where higher education is imparted and research facilities are regulated through its own discipline. Prominent jurists, educationists and research scholars are assigned administrative as well as educational and research assignments for achieving the object of higher education. Such authorities, generally speaking, are competent to administer their own affairs without outside interference from executive or judicial organs. Unless University authorities transgress the scope of their authority or act in violation of the statute, Courts are always loath to interfere with the smooth administration of Universities. Petitioner in the case in hand has been unable to point out any act of discrimination or contravention of the statute. No ground for interference is thus made out. In A our view learned High Court was perfectly right in declining to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in the matter.
7. Accordingly, we see no good ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court.
Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused.