QAMRAL-UL-ISLAM Versus INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF PAKISTAN
ORDER
1. This is a revision petition directed against the judgment and decree dated 5‑1‑1995 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi‑South, in Civil Appeal No.200 of 1991 whereby judgment and decree dated 24‑10‑1991 passed by learned XIth Civil Judge, Karachi‑South was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed, hence the present revision petition.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant filed suit for declaration and injunction against the, respondents with a prayer for injunction that; (i) respondents be directed to disclose to the applicant the marks secured by him in each question of each paper in Group‑I, C.A. Final Examination held from December, 1984; to May, 1987, (ii) allow the applicant to have personal inspection of his answer script so as to identify the genuineness of the answer scripts of each paper of said examinations; (iii) direct the respondents to declare if proved on the disclosure of correct results that the applicant has qualified the Chartered Accountants (Final Group‑I) .Examination; (iv) direct the respondents to enroll/register the applicant as full‑fledged accountant if the findings and conclusions of the above prayer are in his favour and (v) injunction restraining the respondents from declaring the results of examinations conducted by them wrongly, illegally, arbitrarily and mala fidely as per adopted codes.
3. The respondents filed written statement stating therein that applicant passed in Group‑II of final examination in May, 1970 and thereafter, though he has been applying to appear and actually has appeared in Group‑I ,of final examination continuously for past several years yet he could not pass the examination with the result he could not be enrolled as a full‑fledged chartered accountant as he could not secure the passing marks in all four papers in accordance with the criteria laid down by the respondents and the code letter for communicating the result of the chartered accountant examination was framed by the Examination Committee of the Council of the respondents which as a result of policy decided not to disclose marks secured by each candidate in each paper keeping in view practice generally adopted by other prominent institutions of the world engaged in the education of chartered accountancy and the respondents were functioning under the ordinance and bye‑laws framed there under and no violation of, any law or rule has been committed and action taken has been in accordance with law and bye‑laws and practice and policy laid down by the respondents' authority under the law.
4. The applicant in support of his case examined himself while respondents examined` their Secretary Syed Abdul Mauqeem. The Court of learned Civil Judge after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record dismissed the suit, against which Appeal No.200 of 1991 was preferred which was heard by 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi‑South and same was also dismissed after hearing the counsel for parties against which present revision has been preferred.
5. I have heard the applicant in person who has also submitted written arguments and learned counsel for respondents and have perused the case‑law.
6. The applicant has contended that the impugned judgments and decrees of the both Courts below are not legal and are not based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and that 1st Appellate Court has without any justification rejected his application for additional evidence. He has further submitted that his written arguments may be considered for the purpose of admission of this appeal.
7. Mr. Ghulam Abbas Pishori, learned counsel for respondents has argued that the finding of the both Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. He has contended that the suit was framed against the respondents was not maintainable as for the same relief the applicant had filed C.P.D‑680 of 1985 which was heard by Division Bench of this Court and the same was dismissed, therefore, there has neither been any illegality nor material irregularity nor misreading or non‑reading of evidence on record, hence no interference was called for in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
8. Applicant had filed C.P. No.D‑680 of 1985 against the respondents challenging the adoption of code system by the respondents for the declaration of results of the examinee for the examination of the chartered accountants and had prayed that directions be issued to respondents either to clarify the code system or to declare the result by showing marks obtained by the candidates. The said Constitution petition was dismissed by. Division Bench of this Court on 7‑10‑1992 on the ground that respondents are not "person" within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, therefore, petition itself was not maintainable under the law, reference was made to Salahuddin and two others v. Frontier Sugar Mills & Distrillery Ltd. Tokht Bhai and 10 others (PLD 1975 SC 244) also on the ground that the applicant had no case even on merits. It was further observed:
9. "Admittedly, the respondents are following a uniform policy by declaring results of various candidates on the basis of a code system. This is in accordance with the policy formulated by the Examination Committee. Mr. Gharibnawaz Dhakkawalla has failed to invite our attention to any of the provisions of either the said Ordinance or the bye‑laws framed there under which, according to him, have been violated by the respondents while framing such policy. As has been earlier pointed out, the policy has been framed by the respondents in accordance with bye‑law No.74. The said bye‑law vests the Examination Committee with full powers to frame any reasonable policy in regard to holding of Examinations, etc. In view of the fact that there appears to be no clog for the examination Committee to frame any examination policy, we do not find that the said committee cannot frame a policy according to the requirements of the respondents Institute. Mr. Ali Ahmad Tariq has invited our attention to bye‑law Exh.6(2) which indicates that every person becoming a member of the institute shall undertake to be bound by the Ordinance, the bye‑laws and the pronouncements issued by the Council from time to time. In any case, we fully agree with Mr. Ali Ahmad Tariq that the petitioner has no vested right to compel the respondents Institute to either formulate or follow 'a particular policy in connection with holding of examinations by them. Reference in this connection may also be made to Province of Punjab and another v. Ms. Khaqan and others, (PLD 1985 Lah.300), Naeem Mirza v. Government of Sindh through Secretary, Department of Health Sindh Secretariat (1987 CLC 1487) and Sajid Raza and three others v. The Commissioner Quetta Division and nine others (PLD 1973 Kar. 332)."
10. The applicant could not show any contravention or violation of any rule or bye‑law of any mala fide act on the part of the respondents which would warrant interference by the Court of law. In fact, the applicant has failed to show that he has any vested right to challenge the code system of respondents which has been enforced in accordance with rules and bye‑laws framed by the competent Committee. The applicant has not shown as to how the code system and the policy being followed by the respondents would not fall within the scope of the authority of the respondents and the said actions were not in consonance with their rules and bye‑laws. Nothing has been shown by the applicant as to how the challenged actions of the respondents were beyond their own jurisdiction.or were in disregard of their own rules and regulations. In absence of any violation of any rule or law, the applicant cannot maintain the suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents.
11. Reference is made to Ram Ugrah Singh v. Banaras Hindu University (AIR 1925 Allahabad 253 (2) wherein it was observed:
12. "The question whether he has or has not passed a certain examination is one in respect of which by the very act of presenting himself for such examination, he submits himself to the decision of the authorities appointed by the University for the conduct of the same. No Court of law can entertain a claim on his part that he has passed a certain examination when the authorities of the University conducting the examination, and lawfully empowered to adjudicate upon its results, declare him to have failed. Therefore, neither a suit for declaration nor one for injunction against the University lies in such a case. The result is not affected by the fact that the University authority in their publication of the results of the examination have been guilty of violating the provisions of any regulations, etc., by which they may be governed. The University must have absolute discretion over its students in the matter of the classes to which the students are admitted. An injunction directing the authorities . of the University, against their will and against their better judgment, to place a young man in a class where he will receive instruction by which he is not,‑ in the opinion of those authorities, as yet properly qualified to benefit cannot be granted."
13. The respondents is a corporate body just like University and it has got its own rules and bye‑laws for conducting their examinations and any dispute or grievance of a person is to be resolved by the corporate body itself and the Court would not ordinarily interfere with the working of the corporate body and k would not usurp the statutory right of the corporate body and academic institutions. In the instant case the applicant has asked for the relief which under the provisions of rules and bye‑laws and policy of the respondents cannot be granted to the respondents directing him to disclose the marks to the applicant P' when the same is not permissible under the rules and bye‑laws of the respondents so also personal inspection of the answer scripts and to declare the petitioner as qualified chartered accountant being not permissible under the laws Civil Court cannot take over the functions or responsibility of the respondents' institution and would not interfere with the internal domestic working of the respondents' institution. The findings of two Courts below about the non maintainability of the suit is legally correct. The applicant has not pointed out any illegality or material irregularity with the findings of the two Courts below, therefore, no interference is called for and the revision petition on the face of it is not maintainable which is hereby dismissed in limine.
14. H.B.T./Q‑3/K Revision dismissed.