I intend to decide the following writ petitions by one consolidated order having similar facts and law:--
(1) Writ Petition No. 11304 of 2002,
(2) Writ Petition No. 13101 of 2002,
(3) Writ Petition No. 13102 of 2002,
(4) Writ Petition No. 13519 of 2002,
(5) Writ Petition No. 11718 of 2002,
(6) Writ Petition No. 15100 of 2002,
(7) Writ Petition No. 15099 of 2002,
(8) Writ Petition No. 17822 of 2002,
(9) Writ Petition No. 17927 of 2002,
(10) Writ Petition No. 15101 of 2002
(11) Writ Petition No. 9885 of 2002.
2. The brief facts out of which the aforesaid writ petitions arise are that in the month of May, 2001 the Government of the Punjab introduced a Community participation project in Punjab under which private sector/N.G.Os. Could upgrade the existing Government Schools and run them in the afternoon tinder the title of Community High School/Higher Secondary School for Boys and Girls.
The Secretary Education issued a Notification, dated 25-6-2001 directing the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education that no affiliation fee shall be charged from upgraded schools under the scheme for a period of five years as is evident from Annexure-R attached with the report and parawise comments of respondent No.4. Agreements were executed between the petitioner and Government as is evident from Annexure-B attached with the writ petition. The District Education Officer also intimated the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education qua the up-gradation of the petitioners' Schools vide letter, dated 27-10-2001 as is evident from Annexure-- R/1, attached with the main writ petition. The Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education respondent No.4 sought guidance from the Secretary Education vide letter, dated 1-10-2001 pertaining to the maintenance of Endowment Fund by the institutions established under Community Public Partnership for five years as is evident from Annexure-R/11 attached with the report and parawise comments from respondent No.4. The Director Community Schools Monitoring and Evaluation Cell, Punjab, Lahore sent a letter on 7-10-2001 to all the Executive District Officers under the subject "Agreement for the use of building and premises of the Government School for the purpose of up- gradation of Schools through Community Participation Project (CPP) agreement for licensee to establish computer lab for 9th and 10th class (Morning Session) and ICS in evening Session in Community Schools Annexure-I". The District Education Officer (S.E) also sent a letter on 29-11-2001 to all the Principals/Headmasters/Head--mistress, Pilot/Central Model High/Higher Secondary Schools (Boys and Girls), in District Lahore, under the subject "Computer Education for 9th and 10th classes in morning sessions". Similar letter was sent to all the Principals/Headmasters/ Headmistresses, Government High/Higher, Comprehensive Schools, (M&F) in Lahore District Government on 24-12-2001 by the District Education Officer (S.E.), Lahore Cantt. Under the subject "introduction of computer education with the collaboration of private sector". The Secretary Education clarified the position to the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education vide Annexure-R/III under the heading "Affiliation/recognition of Community Schools with Pise under Community Participation Project". The contents of the same reveals that under the regulation of the Board, CPP parties are required to deposit a refundable security with the Boards prior to affiliation/recognition. In order to encourage the private sector to participate more effectively in the scheme, it is directed that the recovery of security deposits from the CPP parties may be deferred for one year from the date of the communication. Those CPP parties which opt to avail this facility may be granted provisional affiliation/recognition until they deposit the security within the time frame as stipulated in this order. The petitioners submitted their applications before the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education for grant of affiliation. The Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education issued a notification, dated 18-2-2002 directing the petitioners to deposit the requisite fee for the purpose of affiliation. The petitioners being aggrieved tiled the aforesaid writ petitions with the following prayer:-- "In view of the above submissions it is most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may very graciously be pleased to accept this petition and declare that--
(i) the demand for payment of Endowment Fund before elapsing five years by the respondents;
(ii) the act of respondents forcing the petitioner to enter into a new agreement with the Executive District Officer Education, and (i.e) act of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to continue Computer Education to 9th and 10th Classes in Morning Session in the light of the orders issued by Mr. Ijaz Ahmad Qureshi, Additional Secretary Education, are illegal, without jurisdiction and without any lawful authority. "
3. The learned counsel of the petitioners submit that the demand of the respondents/Board against the present petitioners is without lawful authority in view of the aforesaid scheme issued by the respondents. They further urge that action of the respondent/Board is not in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Board. They further urge that petitioners executed agreements with the respondents in view of the incentive scheme issued by the respondents in the shape of Booklet which is attached with the writ petition as Annexure-A, therefore, the principle of promissory estoppel is attracted in all force in the given circumstances. They further urge that respondents have no lawful authority to deviate from their commitment, therefore, their action is without lawful authority. In support of their contentions, they relied upon the following judgments: Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation v. Muhammad Akramalizai, Deputy Controller, PBC, Islamabad, PLD 2002 SC 1079 = 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1655, Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Air- -port Manager, Karachi Airport (1998 SCMR 2268), (PLD 2001 SC 166).
(It is pertinent to mention here that there is no judgment at this page).
They further urge that respondent/Board is only competent to recover endowment Fund in terms of Regulation No. 31.11 (a) at pages 133 and 134 of the Calendar of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education. They further submit that competent Authority had deferred the aforesaid fee from the petitioners institutions, therefore, action of the respondent/Board is not sustainable in the eyes of law. They further submit that respondents have no lawful authority to impose affiliation fee from the petitioners as the building of the petitioners' institutions are owned by the Government in view of the Regulations No. IV.3 and IV.4. They further argue that respondents have no lawful authority to compel the petitioners to execute the new agreement.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General, submits that the petitioners were allowed to teach computer classes in 9th and 10th classes m the evening in the Government buildings whereas the respondent/Board directed the petitioners to execute the new agreement with the Government to allow them to teach the computer classes in 9th and 10th classes in the Morning Session also. The petitioners were only allowed to run the classes without affiliation fee whereas the petitioners were not granted exemption of Endowment fee which was deferred only for one year. He further submits that petitioners cannot compel the Government to act contrary to the rules and regulations of the respondents:
5. The learned legal advisor of the respondent/Board submits that fee of Endowment was revised by the Board vide decision, dated 18-12-1995. He further submits that there are two types of fee i.e. Endowment Fund which is mentioned in Chapter 31.11 and recognition fee/affiliation fee, in the case of the petitioners falls under Regulations Nos. IV.3 and IV.4 which is at page 31 of the Calendar of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education. The Board is competent to frame such regulations and prescribe conditions for the purpose of recognition of institutions as is evident from section 10(2)(i.e). He further submits that agreement executed between the petitioners and respondent/Government is not binding upon the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, therefore, respondent No.4 is well within its right to issue the directions to the petitioners to deposit the said fee. He further submits that respondent No.2 has taken a stand in reply of para. 9 that the affiliation with Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education is free for Community Schools for five years, but endowment fund, registration fee and other related funds have to pay by the Private Parties to give the incentive and control the drop out rate. The department gave the relief to the Private Parties according to Notification, dated 9-1-2002 and Government of the Punjab deferred the security fee for one more year and also extended the registration of students in class 9 and F.Sc., Part-I up to 15th October, 2002 without late fee.
6. The learned counsel of the petitioners in rebuttal submit that direction of the Government is binding on the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education that is why the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education sought clarification from the Secretary Education.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
8. It is admitted fact that the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education is statutory body, therefore, agreement executed between the petitioners and the Government of the Punjab is not binding upon the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education. The respondent No.1 sought clarification from the Secretary Education in view of sections 11, 12 and 33(3) of the Punjab Board Act, 1976 amended up to 1985. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent/Board had framed regulations qua recognition of institutions as is evident from Chapter IV under section 10(2)(i.e) and also prescribe rates qua the recognition of institutions in Chapter 31. The rates were increased by the respondent/Board from time to time as is evident from decision dated 28-12-1995. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent/Government did not prohibit the respondent/Board to charge endowment fund from the petitioners. The Government has deferred only the affiliation fee for a period of five years by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education vide Notification, dated 25-6-2002. The Secretary Education clarified', the aforesaid position to the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education vide letter, dated 9-1-2002. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioners did not challenge the vires of the letter, dated 9-1-2002 through these Constitutional petitions on the basis of which the respondent/Board had issued the impugned notice to the petitioners even if the directions of the Government of the Punjab is binding on the respondent/Board. The learned counsel of the petitioners failed to point out any clause of policy which was violated by the respondents, therefore, writ petitions are not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ali Mir's case (1984 SCMR 433). It is pertinent to mention here that each and every case is to be decided on its own peculiar circumstances and facts. The judgments cited by the learned counsel of the petitioners are distinguished on facts and law. It is settled principle of law that our Constitution is based on trichotomy and this Court has only jurisdiction to interpret the law and has no jurisdiction to take the role of the policy maker. In fact the petitioners challenged the policies of the respondent/Government, therefore, writ petitions are not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Zameer Ahmad's case (PLD 1975 SC 667) and Zameer Ahmad's case (1978 SCMR 327) circumstances of the cases, let copies of the writ petitions be sent to the Secretary Education, who is directed to look into the matter personally and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law preferably within two months positively after receiving the order of this Court after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioners either himself or send the same to the competent authority for decision who is also directed to pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioners preferably within two months after receiving the order of this Court. Parties are directed to appear before the Secretary Education in his office at 11-00 a.m. On 14-11-2002, who is directed to pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioners preferably within two months till 14-1-2003 either himself or send the same to the competent authority who is also directed to pass an appropriate order in terms of the aforesaid direction till 14-1-2003. He is further directed to submit his report to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within the stipulated period. The learned Additional Advocate-General is directed to notify the order to the Secretary Education for necessary action and compliance.
With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed of.