Contempt case: Court puts NESCOM, NCA officials on notice

Four NCA officials moved the court against GM’s contract extension.

ISLAMABAD:

A court on Monday issued notices to top officials of two scientific and research organisations in a contempt case.

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) summoned the National Engineering and Scientific Commission (Nescom) and National Command Authority (NCA) in response to a contempt petition filed by four officials of NCA for extending contracts of superannuated officials.

Justice Riaz Ahmed Khan of the Islamabad High Court issued notices to NCA Director General Ghulam Asghar, Director Khalid Ahmed Kidwai, Nescom Chairman Muhammad Irfan Burney, and Deputy Director-General Tanveer Minto and sought their replies.

The contempt petition filed on April 26 by four GMs — Zafar Iqbal, Sajid Bashir, Muhammad Zubair, and Muhammad Saeedullah Khan — contended that despite court orders to maintain the status quo till the third week of May, the respondents had extended NCA DG Asghar’s contract on April 1.

Counsel for the petitioner, Raja Saifur Rehman, maintained that the DG who was superannuated in 2008, was given repeated extensions. “On April 1, in sheer violation of court orders, the respondents granted him further extension, which is clearly contempt of court.”

He requested the court to start contempt proceeding against the respondents.

Refund of admission fee

The same court on Monday directed Comsats Institute of Information Technology to refund the admission fee to a student who decided to join another university.

“Commercialsation of educational institutions has resulted in policies to squeeze money from students,” observed Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui. The judge observed that educational institutes cannot be allowed to operate purely on a commercial basis. Their main objective should be to educate to build a civilized nation.

“These types of policies are a burden on the entire family and there are instances where brilliant students are deprived of education because of financial constraints,” the court observed. Muhammad Usman urged the court to direct Comsats to refund Rs69,000 he had paid to the institute as admission fee since he had joined admission in another institute.

The counsel for the petitioner maintained that his client had applied to various universities for the same degree programme. He argued that his client had also paid Rs85,000 in fees after he was offered admission in another institute, therefore Comsats should be directed to refund the admission fee. The judge directed the Higher Education Commission to revisit its policy regulating private and public universities.

The court observed that there are no rational grounds for not refunding the entire fee, calling it illegal, and against principles of equity and social justice.

Earlier, the counsel for the petitioner contended that his client wrote a letter to Comsats additional registrar requesting refund, but he was refused. The counsel for Comsats argued that the petitioner had no cause of action to file the case as he had willingly accepted the admission offer from Comsats along with the terms and conditions.

The counsel maintained that the institution published the admission dates in major newspapers and put on its website. “Comsats is governed by its ordinance since 2000 and the admission policy is formulated in accordance with it,” he argued.

The court observed that students make their dreams come true by opting for educational institutions in accordance with their priorities and means. “It is the right of every student to secure his educational career and apply for admission to different institutions which should not be treated as an offence resulting in forfeiture of the entire fee received by the institution.”

Published in The Express Tribune, May 1^st, 2012.