Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 599/BWP with Civil Miscellaneous No. 982 of 1986/BWP, decided on 12th November, 1986.

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Educational institutions‑‑Migration of student‑‑Migration of student from one Polytechnical Institute to its other sister‑institution‑ Sole competent authority to decide migration cases of student from one Polytechnical Institute to another was Chairman, Punjab Board of Technical Education‑‑Principals of such institution were obliged simply to forward application of student for migration to such competent authority after giving their own comments‑‑Principals, held, were not entitled to decide migration case themselves‑‑Principal, being forwarding authority, would not be entitled to withhold application of student seeking migration on grounds that migration in first year class had completely been banned or that applicant was not eligible for migration as his provisional admission in pursuant to High Court's Order had not been regularised‑‑Such matter would be decided by authority competent to decide migration case and not by forwarding authority.‑‑[Educational institutions].

M. Jaffar Hashmi for Petitioner. Respondent No. 1 in person.

Heard, It is conceded that the petitioner's application for migration from the institute headed by the respondent, to its sister‑institute at Multan, is pending with him for verification, to be ultimately decided by the Chairman, Punjab Board of Technical Education, Lahore. He, however, considers, firstly, that advice of the Director of Technical Education Punjab, Lahore, tendered to the Board on 11‑4‑1982, as conveyed to him through Annexure 'I' (to his reply to the petition), aims at completely banning migration in the first year class and, secondly, that since the petitioner had been admitted to the first year class only provisionally pursuant to the High Court's order, dated 1‑10‑1986 which has so far not been regularized, therefore, in its absence he is not eligible for migration.

2. It is represented that the authority to sanction migration vests in the Chairman, Punjab Board of Technical Education and that without his sanction migration cannot mature so that, for this purpose either of the Principals of relieving or receiving Institute may, with the concurrence of his contemporary, sent up the proposed migration to the Chairman for his decision. This course, no doubt, aims at providing safe‑guards against the apprehensions which had led to the tender of the aforementioned advice and seems to have been devised in keeping therewith. Thus, all cases of migrations having been subjected to the sanction of only one authority, namely, the Chairman, the chances of malpractices at lower level will get eliminated automatically and no further action seems necessary to be taken by the Principals on the basis of the said advice which, itself, appears to have suggested as an interim measure in the year 1982, to have, by now, well‑achieved its object.

3. In the above view of the matter, a Principal' of either College becomes an initiating authority who as such, would be entitled to give his own comments in each particular case of migration sent up by him but would not be eligible to himself either decide the prayer for migration or even anticipate its decision, one way or the other, to be made by the Chairman and sit upon the request on the assumption that it may not, or even that it should not, find favour with him. Whatever merit or demerit a particular case may have, the forwarding authority, has a duty to send it up for determination by the competent authority with his own views about the case given in the forwarding letter, contemplated to accompany the Form for Migration of Students. Thus, even the second plea of the Principal, reproduced above, does not give him a right to withhold the plea of the petitioner.

4. Hence, respondent is directed to complete the formalities of the petitioner's application for migration to Multan, at the latest, by 10‑30 a. m. on 13‑11‑1986 so that it may leave his office by that time (positively) for consideration of the Chairman, Punjab Board of Technical Education, Lahore.

5. The above requirement has been conveyed in the Court to the respondent. However, petitioner will take a copy of this order to him well in time for the needful being done.

6. C.M. No. 982 of 1986 is disposed of as above.

H.B.T./F‑6/L Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.