Governor, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Principal Secretary, Governor House, Vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others

JUDGMENT SHEET

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P. No.9357-P/2025 Governor, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Principal Secretary, Governor House, Peshawar Vs.

Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others

Date of hearing 14.09.2026 For Petitioner(s): Mr. Shumail Ahmad Butt Advocate.

For Respondent(s): Mr. Waqar Orakzai AAG for the official respondents along with M/s Muhammad Muazzam Butt, Sikandar Rashid Advocates & Aftab Ahmad, Section Officer (litigation), Governor House.

JUDGMENT

WIQAR AHMAD, J. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, (worthy Governor of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa), claims to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of Edwardes College, Peshawar, under the legal framework governing the institution. According to the petitioner, Edwardes College, had originally been managed by the Christian Missionary Society, which came under the management of Provincial Government with its distinct governance structure. Subsequently, a Board of Governors

was constituted for the College vide Notification dated 10.01.1974, with the Governor of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa as its Chairman. The petitioner further contends that governance and legal status of the College subsequently became subject of litigation and were finally determined by Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan vide judgment dated 20.05.2024, whereby the Board of Governors headed by the Governor was recognized as the governing authority of the College. The immediate grievance of petitioner arises from decision of Provincial Cabinet taken in its 39th meeting held on 02.10.2025, followed by notifications dated 14.10.2025, whereby Provincial Government purportedly extended the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Educational and Training Institutions Ordinance, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “Educational Institutions Ordinance”) to Edwardes College and reconstituted its Board of Governors, placing the Chief Minister as its Chairman and excluded the Governor from the position.

Petitioner asserts that said decision and notifications are contrary to judgment of Honorable Supreme Court and the existing legal W.P. No.9357-P/2025

framework governing the College. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned decision and notifications, petitioner has invoked constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, with the following prayers:

“It is, therefore, very humbly prayed that on acceptance of this Writ Petition, this Honorable Court may very magnanimously hold, declare and direct:

a. That the impugned decision taken in the 39th meeting of the Provincial Cabinet dated 02.10.2025, along with its impugned minutes and consequent impugned Notifications No. SO/HED/Edwardes College/2025 and Notification No. SO/HED/Edwardes College (BoG)/2025, both dated 14.10.2025 published on 29.10.2025, are illegal, unconstitutional, void ab initio, and without lawful authority, having been made in violation of the binding judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 20.05.2024 and contrary to the Privately Managed Schools and Colleges (Taking Over) Regulations, 1972. b. Set aside the impugned decision and all consequential actions, including impugned Notifications No. SO/HED/Edwardes College/2025 and Notification No. SO/HED/Edwardes College (BoG)/2025, both dated 14.10.2025 published on 29.10.2025 issued by the Higher Education Department / Provincial Government, purporting to alter, restructure, or interfere with the composition or functioning of the Board of Governors of Edwardes College, Peshawar.

c. Declare and reaffirm that the Governor of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is the Chairman and lawful head of the Board of Governors of Edwardes College, Peshawar, as held by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, and that the College shall continue to be managed and administered strictly in accordance with the 1974 Notification and the legal framework affirmed by the apex Court.

d. Restrain the Respondents, their officers, and subordinates from interfering, directly or indirectly, in the management, administration, or decision-making authority of the Board of Governors of Edwardes College, Peshawar, in contravention of law. e. Direct the Respondents to implement in letter and spirit the judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 20.05.2024, ensuring full compliance with its directions and restoration of the legally recognized governance structure.

W.P. No.9357-P/2025

f. Grant any other relief that this Honorable Court deems just, equitable, and appropriate in the circumstances of the case. g. Costs throughout.

2.During pendency of instant writ petition, the Diocese of Peshawar, Church of Pakistan, through its Bishop Humphrey Sarfraz Peters, in his capacity as its Legal, Administrative, Executive and Spiritual Head, filed an application (CM. No.1687-P of 2026) seeking its impleadment as a respondent. Said application was allowed by this Court, finding the presence of applicant necessary for just and proper adjudication of the controversy, and the Diocese of Peshawar was impleaded as respondent No.7.

3.Learned counsel for petitioner, during the course of his arguments placed heavy reliance on earlier judgment of Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 20.05.2024, rendered in Civil Petitions Nos.4074 to 4076 of 2019, titled Bishop Humphrey Sarfaraz Peter v. Shakil Ahmad Nisar etc, and contended that Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan had held that Edwardes College, Peshawar, was having a special status, wherein the Provincial Government as well as other stakeholders were found jointly running affairs of the College. He W.P. No.9357-P/2025

further contended that the earlier dispensation created under the Governor’s notification dated 10.01.1974 had been upheld by the Honorable Apex Court and, therefore, change in the composition of the Board of Governors brought about through the impugned notification dated 29.10.2025 was violative of judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan. He next contended that the concerned Secretary, while briefing the Provincial Cabinet on the agenda item, had stated that the College had been nationalized under paragraph 118 of the Martial Law Regulation by the Provincial Government and, therefore, Provincial Government had been misled into making the impugned decision, which, for this reason also, was bad in the eyes of law. His additional argument was that, with the change in the composition of the Board of Governors, Provincial Government had obtained a majority of the total membership, which also vitiated the fresh constitution of the Board of Governors of Edwardes College. Learned counsel representing the impleaded applicant, i.e.

respondent No.7, supported the arguments W.P. No.9357-P/2025

advanced by learned counsel for petitioner. He further added that, due to past interference by the Provincial Government and the earlier dispute relating to the appointment of the Principal, etc., performance of the College had deteriorated to the lowest ebb and, therefore, instant writ petition deserved to be allowed as prayed for. Learned AAG, submitted in rebuttal that the Government had not changed the special status of Edwardes College, as upheld by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan;

rather, it had only changed the composition of the Board of Governors, which fell within the powers of the Provincial Government under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Educational and Training Institutions Ordinance, 1971.

Learned AAG also referred to paragraph 19 of the comments of respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4, wherein it had expressly been stated that the Government had never intended to alter or dismantle the mandate of the Board; rather, constitution of the Board had only been changed pursuant to the provisions of the Educational Institutions Ordinance. Learned AAG further submitted that all the requisite W.P. No.9357-P/2025

funding had always been provided to the College by the Provincial Government and, therefore, Provincial Government could not be deemed excluded from exercising its powers to change composition of the Board of Governors, particularly when the Educational Institutions Ordinance expressly conferred such powers upon the Provincial Government. Learned counsel representing Edwardes College stated that the College had always been supported by the Provincial Government through allocation of requisite funds from the Provincial Consolidated Fund and that the worthy Governor had never contributed any amount towards funds of the College. He added that substitution of Chief Minister for the Governor (in the Board of Governors) would improve the statutory governance mechanism applicable to the College as well as address matters relating to funding, etc.; therefore, the College supported the impugned notification.

4.We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5.The competing arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties give rise to the W.P. No.9357-P/2025

following questions for determination in the instant case;

A. Whether any change in the special status of Edwardes College has been brought about through the impugned notification and, if so, whether the impugned notification is violative of the ratio laid down in the judgment dated 20.05.2024, rendered by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petitions Nos.4074 to 4076 of 2019?

B. Whether the Provincial Government was within its lawful authority to issue the impugned notification?

C. Whether the impugned notification is otherwise contrary to any law or rules?

So far as the first question is concerned, it arises from the main argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, who vehemently contended that Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan had upheld the notification of 1974 issued by the then Governor of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and, therefore, the special mechanism provided therein could not have been unilaterally altered by the Provincial Government. According to learned counsel, W.P. No.9357-P/2025

such alteration was violative of the ratio laid down by the Honorable Apex Court. To discern the purport and legal effect of the 1974 notification, same is reproduced herein below:

Government of NWFP Education Department Class/group

Dated Peshawar the 10th January, 1974

NOTIFICATION

No.S.O.E 1/19-6/73. The Governor, North- West Frontier Province is pleased to establish the following Board of Governors for Edwards College, Peshawar, with immediate effect. All the administrative powers for this collage will vest in the board:

1.The governor, NWFP. Chairman 2. The Minister for Education, NWFP Vice, Chairman.

3.The Bishop, Peshawar Vice Chairman.

4.The Vice, Chancellor, University of Peshawar Member.

5.The Commissioner, Peshawar Division, Peshawar Member

6.The Secretary, Government of NWFP, Finance Department Member.

7.The Secretary, Government of NWFP, Health & Education Department Member.

8.The Director of Education NWFP Peshawar Member.

9.One Member of the staff to be elected by staff members for a term of 3 years Member.

10.One Senior Old Boy of the Collage to be nominated by the Chairman for a term of 3 years. Member.

11.One Member to be nominated by Bishop of Peshawar. Member.

12.The Principal, Edwards Collage, Peshawar Member & Secretary.

Kh.Ghulam Mohyuddin Deputy Secretary, Education, Health & Education Department

6.The above-reproduced notification was issued in the name of Governor of Khyber W.P. No.9357-P/2025

Pakhtunkhwa. The notification bears the caption “Government of NWFP, Education Department”. It is not mentioned under which statutory provision or authority said notification was issued. However, it would not be entirely out of context to state, that under provisions of Educational Institutions Ordinance, the Governor was authorized to constitute Boards of Governors for those educational institutions to which provisions of said Ordinance were applicable. This, however, cannot be taken to mean that the notification was issued under said Ordinance or that the Ordinance had been applied to Edwardes College in 1974, as there is no affirmative evidence in this regard. This aspect is mentioned for the reason that, at the relevant time, i.e. in 1974, it appears to have been the prevailing practice that such notifications used to be issued under the name of Governor, as the unamended section 9 provided that the Governor or his nominee would be the controlling authority of the Board constituted under the ordinance. Similarly, under section 4, the power to appoint members of the Board W.P. No.9357-P/2025

vested in the Governor under the unamended provisions, while extensive powers were also conferred upon the controlling authority under section 10 of the unamended Educational Institutions Ordinance. The Ordinance was however amended vide the North-West Frontier Province (Amendment of Laws) Bill, 2005, whereby the word “Governor” was substituted with “Chief Minister” in sections 2, 4, 5 and 9 of the Educational Institutions Ordinance. The power to apply the provisions of the Ordinance or to constitute the Board of Governors vested in the Chief Minister, thereafter.

7.Coming back to the notification, same could neither be treated as a notification issued by the Governor in isolation nor construed to be excluding the Provincial Government from the process. The notification had been issued by an officer of the then Education Department of the provincial government. It was also bearing caption of the provincial government indicating to have been issued in the name of Governor but on behalf of the provincial government. The notification, as well as the role performed by the Governor in issuing the notification and in W.P. No.9357-P/2025

chairing the Board of Governors, was also considered by the Honorable Supreme Court, in its entirety, as part of the functions of Provincial Government. Throughout the judgment, such activities have repeatedly been treated as functions of the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The question as to whether the College was owned by the Provincial Government or was a private college was also considered and concluded by the Honorable Supreme Court in paragraph 11 of its judgment in the following terms:

“11. So, the answer to the fundamental question raised before us with respect to the status of the College is that it is neither nationalized under Regulation 118 nor a private institution. Rather it is an institution functioning under a unique, distinctive and hybrid arrangement, where there is a partnership between the KP Government and the private parties, which is reflected in the form of the Board. In our view, the College has a special status, whereby the College is administered and managed by the Board. In this way, the KP Government works through the Board, in partnership with the other members and does not have absolute control as per Regulation 118. Similar arrangement was made and recognized by this Court in the case of Aitchison College”.

8.While concluding the discussion and answering the question, it was categorically held that the College had got a special status, whereby it was being administered and managed by the Board, and the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was found to have been W.P. No.9357-P/2025

working through the Board in partnership with its other members. It was also explained that the Provincial Government was not having absolute dominion over the College, under MLR

118.The earlier controversy involved two principal groups claiming control over the College: one representing the Provincial Government and the other comprising the private entity, including Bishop Humphrey Sarfaraz Peter and the Diocese of Peshawar. In said judgment, Provincial Government was considered as a whole, which also included the Governor of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, whereas the other group was treated as a distinct entity claiming the College to be a private institution.

The controversy, to the extent of determining the special status of the College, was accordingly resolved in the manner reproduced above.

9.The dispute in instant writ petition has arisen between the worthy Governor and the worthy Chief Minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

This controversy has its own dynamics;

however, so far as change in the status of the College is concerned, we find that the impugned W.P. No.9357-P/2025

notification reconstituting the Board of Governors did not purport to bring about any change in the special status of the College as recognized by the Honorable Apex Court in the above-mentioned judgment. The earlier notification was also treated by the Honorable Apex Court as having been issued on behalf of the Provincial Government, while the impugned notification has likewise been issued by the Provincial Government. The impugned notification only brings about a change in composition of the Board of Governors and, therefore, no conflict is discernible between impugned notification and the findings of Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan rendered in above-mentioned judgment.

10.Coming to the second question, it is important to note that Provincial Government had lawful authority to issue the impugned notification under the Educational Institutions Ordinance. As is evident from its preamble, the Ordinance was promulgated with the object of bringing about modifications in the law relating to the establishment of Boards of Governors for government educational and training W.P. No.9357-P/2025

institutions in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. By virtue of sub-section (3), inserted in 1971 through Ordinance No.XIII, provisions of the Ordinance could also be applied to any educational or training institution, other than a government educational and training institution, from such date specified in the notification. Similarly, the expression “institution” was also defined to mean any educational or training institution notified by the Government under sub-section

(2)or sub-section (3) of section 1. In other words, provisions of the Ordinance could be applied by the Provincial Government to both governmental and non-governmental educational institutions in accordance with the Ordinance. Section 3 provides that, for the efficient management and control of an institution, a Board of Governors shall be constituted, which shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal. Section 4 of the Ordinance provides for the constitution of the Board, comprising eleven members, whose appointment, under the amended provisions, vests in the Chief Minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. In the instant matter, W.P. No.9357-P/2025

Provincial Government, through its decision on Additional Agenda Item No.10 in the 39th meeting of the Cabinet held on 02.10.2025, decided to apply the provisions of the Ordinance and the regulatory mechanism embodied therein to Edwardes College. For ready reference, decision of the Cabinet is reproduced herein below:

DECISION:

The Cabinet approved the extension of Section 3 (1) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Education & Training Institutions Ordinance, 1971 in Edwardes College Peshawar. The Cabinet further approved the following composition of BoG under Section of the ibid ordinance.

1.Chief Minister, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chairperson

2.Minister/Special Assistant/Advisor to CM for Higher Education Vice Chairperson

3.Bishop of Peshawar Member.

4.Secretary Higher Education, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Member

5.Secretary Finance, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Member 6. Secretary Establishment, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Member

7.Principal, Edward's College Peshawar Member/ Secretary

8.Director, Higher Education, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Member

9.Three members to be nominated by Chairman: Members i. Senior retired Bureaucrat (Not less than

BPS-21)

ii. Senior alumnifaculty member from Edwards Collage.

iii. Eminent Educationist.

Implementing Department: HED

I am request that an implementation report of the Cabinet decision as required under Rule 25 (2) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Rules of Business, 1985 may kindly be furnished on top priority basis to the Cabinet Section, Administration Department.

11.In pursuance to decision of the Cabinet, impugned notification was issued. The Cabinet W.P. No.9357-P/2025

decision had two parts: firstly, to apply section 3(1) of the Educational Institutions Ordinance to Edwardes College, Peshawar; and secondly, to constitute its Board of Governors under section 4 of the Ordinance. Under the above- mentioned Ordinance, Provincial Government had lawful authority to take both actions and, therefore, no illegality or want of lawful authority could be established by learned counsel representing the petitioner in either of the two decisions. The vires of the law has not been questioned before us, and the authority of the Provincial Government flowing therefrom is evident from provisions of the Ordinance. It also needs to be explained that, by applying provisions of the Ordinance, special status of Edwardes College has not been changed. The Educational Institutions Ordinance does not contain any provision to that effect. Its primary object is to provide for the management of an institution through a Board of Governors and, principally, to empower the Board to take decisions and deal with the affairs of the educational institution in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance. The Provincial W.P. No.9357-P/2025

Government cannot be said to have acquired any property of the College or otherwise changed its special status merely by issuance of the subject notification. Section 12 of the Ordinance further provides that where any movable or immovable property is vested in the Government, same shall vest in the Board of Governors upon issuance of notification applying the Ordinance to such institution, and upon rescission of such notification, the property shall revert to the Government, but only where such property was previously owned by the Provincial Government. Before issuance of the impugned notification, affairs of Edwardes College were being governed by a similar notification issued by the then Governor in the name of the then Provincial Government in 1974. Said mechanism was upheld by the Honorable Apex Court. The impugned notification does not change the position of the Provincial Government vis-à-vis the other stakeholders; it only changes composition of the Board of Governors. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he is the worthy Governor of the Province and cannot claim a capacity wholly W.P. No.9357-P/2025

distinct and separate from that of the Provincial Government, even under the 1974 notification.

It has not been the case of worthy Governor that the College was established by the Federal Government, or that it is funded by the Federal Government, or that he has been authorized by the Federal Government to look after its affairs.

Even the 1974 notification cannot be read to this effect; rather, as explained while answering the earlier question, it indicated that the notification was issued on behalf of the then Provincial Government. It has also been found that the Provincial Government possessed the statutory authority to issue the impugned notification. It is also pertinent to note that regularizing the affairs of Edwardes College by bringing it within a well-defined statutory mechanism through application of the Educational Institutions Ordinance would facilitate better management and regulation of the College. Such statutory intervention would, therefore, be beneficial for the institution.

12.Learned counsel for petitioner could not indicate any other illegality committed in the issuance of the impugned notification. His W.P. No.9357-P/2025

argument that the Secretary Higher Education had given a wrong briefing to the Provincial Government, stating that the College had been nationalized under paragraph 118 of the Martial Law Regulation, 1972 (which stance had not been accepted by the Honorable Apex Court in its earlier judgment) was found having no water. So far as the discussion and briefing given to the Cabinet by the worthy Secretary Higher Education is concerned, same merely reflected the stance of Higher Education Department. Such discussion, per se, is not justiciable. It is the decision of Provincial Government which is justiciable. The decision of the Provincial Cabinet, reproduced above, does not, however, reflect any such stance or decision. Rather, the decision clearly purports to apply the provisions of the Educational Institutions Ordinance under section 3 and to reconstitute the Board of Governors under section 4, and to that extent, no illegality has been found in the decision.

So far as the pleas regarding the majority of members of board was concerned, same was also not a tenable argument. It was not a W.P. No.9357-P/2025

business or corporate concern. The members were also having the slots in official capacity like Secretary Education and Secretary Finance etc, to whom no conflict of interest may be attributed. Besides the educational institutions ordinance was also not putting an embargo on the provincial government in reconstituting the board. No other illegality has either been pointed out in the impugned notification.

13.In light of what has been discussed above, instant writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Announced

--sd--

JUDGE

--sd--

JUDGE

(DB)Hon’ble Mr. Justice Wiqar Ahmad J. Hon’ble Ms. Justice Farah Jamshed J. *Atif Zafar JSS*

W.P. No.9357-P/2025