| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 2891 2016 SLD 2891 2016 PLD 405 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 728 of 2015, decision Dated: 15-10-2015. Dates ofhearing: 2nd, 15th and 21st September, 2015.
NADEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Dr. Muhammad Farogh Naseem
Respondent(s) by: Ahmed Ali Hussain, Khalid Shah
Suit No. 728 of 2015, decision Dated: 15-10-2015. Dates ofhearing: 2nd, 15th and 21st September, 2015.
NADEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Dr. Muhammad Farogh Naseem
Respondent(s) by: Ahmed Ali Hussain, Khalid Shah
RIMSHA SHAIKHANIVSNIXOR COLLEGE THROUGH BOARD OF DIRECTORS/GOVERNORS AND ANOTHER
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 25
(a) Constitution of Pakistan-- ----Art. 25---Right to education---'No Tuition Policy', validity of---Doctrine of proportionality---Applicability---Rights and duties of students and educational institutions---Scope and enforceability---College did not allow plaintiff to appear in final A-Level examination as she had taken private tuition against their 'No Tuition Policy'---Plaintiff was, however, allowed to sit in final examination as per direction of the Court under interim relief---Plaintiff filed present application seeking directions to the College to the effect that her result of final examination be released, and school leaving certificate be issued along with any other documents that might be required by her---Validity---Defendant-college admittedly did allow their students to take tuitions subject to conditions that prior permission in that behalf was obtained from the college by student and tuitions were taken only from faculty of the college---College never had any objection to plaintiff's act itself whereby she took tuitions, which was also permissible according to their policy---College's entire case was on the ground that she had taken tuition without permission---Colleges, in such event, could remove plaintiff from school according to their own orientation but could not withhold her results or school leaving certificate---Before taking any adverse action against student for wrong committed by him, it must have been ascertained whether such wrong was "legal wrong" or "moral wrong"---High Court observed that acts as cheating in tests or examinations, violence or vandalism, use of drugs or arms, obscenity and vulgarity, failure in observing punctuality and maintaining attendant, or any such act, which was of serious in nature, committed by students, could not, and should not, be allowed or tolerated under any circumstances---Students were legally and morally bound not to indulge in any of the said acts, otherwise, they would be liable to punitive or penal consequences---All other duties and obligations which students were required or expected to do, whether by themselves or by their educational institutions, were moral duties and…