PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court on Friday declined to issue a stay orderinfavour of the private educational institutions against the provincial government`s decision to shift their examination centres to the government`s for the upcoming secondary school certificate annual examination.

A bench consisting of Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Dr Khurshid Iqbal heard arguments of the lawyers for private institutions and the government as well as the representatives of the Peshawar Board of Intermediateand SecondaryEducation.

The petitioners had sought an interim relief requesting the court to suspend till final disposal of their petitions the impugned move of the government and Peshawar BISE of shifting examination centres of private institutions to government one.

The bench adjourned hearing of the case, while declining to allow the sought-after interim relief to the petitioners.

The petitions were filed by the Private Education Network (PEN) and a private institution, Global School and College of Science and Arts.

Advocates Essa Khan and Taif Khan appeared for the two petitioners respectively, while the provincial government was represented by additionaladvocate general Taimoor Haider.

A few days ago, a meetingchaired by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa chief secretary Shahab Ali Shah took several decisions for checking the use of unfair means in SSC examination, which will commence on April 8.

One of the decisions was to relocate examination centres of private educational institutions to the government institutes.

Advocate Taif Khan argued that his client was earlier allotted an examination centre at the institution and for that purpose all the stationery was also handed over to it.

He added that all of a sudden, the Peshawar BISE ordered to shift the said centre to a government centre.

The lawyer insisted that the chief secretary had no powers to conduct a meeting regarding affairs of educational boards.

He said that the reason put for-ward for the impugned decision was to stop unfair means.

The counsel, however, said that duties to examiners and other staff had been assigned by the boards and not by the private institutions.

Advocate Essa Khan contended that while a meeting had been convened regarding affairs of the educational boards, the private educational institutions, which were major stakeholders, had not been invited to the meeting.

He said that the government claimed that 70 percent of the students of private institutions would appear in examinations in government centres. He added that the government centres lacked basic facilities and it could not manage even students of government schools.

The counsel said that the court might set up a commission toinspect government centres and decide whether these centres could cope with the large number of students of private institutions.

Advocate Saadatullah Khan Tanghiappearedforthe BISEand argued that only in those government centres, which had more accommodation, students of nearby private schools would be shifted. He added where there was no proper space, the board had set up examination halls in private institutions.

BISE controller (examination) Inamullah Shah said that they had been conducting the SSC examination for around 194,000 students hailing from Peshawar, Charsadda, Khyber, Mohmand, Upper and Lower Chitral districts.

He said 726 examination centres were set up and roll numbers had already been issued to students.

When the bench wonderedwhether the government centres had the required facilities, the controller said all arrangements had been completed.

He said that all basic facilities were available at the centres, including drinking water, electricity and furniture.

AAG Taimoor Haider contended that the impugned decision of the government was in accordance with law.

He added that assigning government centres to students of private institutions was a government policy and the courts didn`t interfere in a government policy unless the same was in violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

The AAG said none of the fundamental rights of the petitioners had been violated through the said policy, so the same couldn`t be challenged in the court.