2017 PLP 130 (CLCN)

GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, J.

This appeal is directed with leave of the Court against the judgment and order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.271/2016, decided on 28.11.2016.

2. The facts forming background of the captioned appeal are that the respondent, herein, applied to the Azad Jammu and Kashmir University for admission in LL.B, Session 2015-18, however, his application was rejected on the ground that he is lacking the required qualification i.e. 2nd division in B.A. It was claimed that the relevant committee has overlooked the fact that the appellant is an M.Sc. in Kashmir Studies, with first division, which is a higher degree, thus, the appellant was eligible for admission in LL.B. Rejection of his application by the concerned committee on the ground that he is. B.A. third division, is illegal, erroneous and without lawful authority. The writ petition was contested by respondents Nos.3 and 4 on the ground that the petition is misconceived and the petitioner is not aggrieved in the eye of law. They further claimed that the petitioner has approached the Court with unclean hands and has suppressed material facts; hence, he is not entitled to any relief. It was claimed that the petitioner has not appended the Masters degree along with the writ petition and rejection of his application is in accordance with the law and conditions of the advertisement. In the written statement, the other paragraphs of the writ petition were also refuted. After hearing the parties, the learned High Court vide judgment and order dated 28.11.2016, accepted the writ petition and directed the respondents to issue roll number to the respondent, herein. The aforesaid judgment and order has been assailed through this appeal.

3. Mr. Farooq Hussain Kashmiri, advocate, counsel for the appellants, contended that the judgment and order passed by the High Court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law and the rules. The learned counsel further argued that under the University Statute, for admission to the LL.B. class, the minimum qualification is B.A. second division and the respondent, herein, was not in possession of the same, therefore, the admission committee has rightly rejected his application. The learned counsel maintained that the decision of the committee was neither arbitrary nor illegal and the writ petition was not maintainable as no violation of rules or regulations was pointed out by the petitioner. The learned counsel argued that the judgment relied upon by the learned High Court reported as Mrs. Nazneen Farooqui and others v. Province of Sindh and others [2007 YLR 1776] has distinguishable facts and the rule of law laid down therein was not attracted to the facts of the case in hand. It was contended by the learned counsel that the decision of the committee was perfectly legal and was immune from challenge and couldn't be substituted in any manner.

4. Conversely, Ch. Shaukat Aziz, advocate, counsel for the respondent, submitted that the appellant is M.A. with second division and if a person is not in possession of minimum qualification, rather is in possession of higher degree, can be granted admission in view of the rule of law laid down in the case reported as Rashida Awan v. District Education Officer and others [2007 SCR 406]. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the cases reported as Mrs. Nazneen Farooqui and others v. Province of Sindh and others [2007 YLR 1776] and Arsallan Habib v. Azad Government and 5 others [2013 SCR 1110]. The learned counsel defended the judgment and order passed by the High Court and prayed that as the appellant is pursuing his studies since last two years, therefore, his admission may not be cancelled.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with utmost care. 7(sic.) At the very outset, it may be stated that Mst. Nazneen Farooqui's case (supra) referred to and relied upon by the High Court while accepting the writ petition, has distinguishable facts and the rule of law laid down therein is not attracted to the facts of the case in hand. In the present case, the requirement of the admission, as per rules, is that the candidate should at least be in possession of second class bachelor degree or equal. The appellant is lacking the minimum qualification fixed by the University for the purpose of admission; therefore, he cannot be granted admission on the ground that he has superior degree in first division. The contention of Ch. Shaukat Aziz, advocate, that second class bachelor degree is a minimum qualification and there is no restriction for admission if a person is in possession of a higher degree, is devoid of any force. If the contention is accepted, then admission policy formulated by the competent authority will become redundant.

8. The law is well-settled that when the university has taken a decision contrary to the Statute or the rules arbitrarily, depriving a person from the right to admission, then the Courts do interfere in the process of admission but where the admissions have strictly been made in accordance with the policy or the rules, the Courts cannot substitute the opinion reached at by the admission committee or the university authorities. In the case reported as Sanchit Bansal and another v. Joint Admission Board (JAB) and others [2012 SCMR 1841], it was observed as under:- "

19. Thus, the process of evaluation, the process of ranking and selection of candidates for admission with reference to their performance, the process of achieving the objective of selecting candidates who will be better equipped to suit the specialized courses, are all technical matters in academic field and courts will not interfere in such processes. Courts will interfere only if they find all or any of the following: (i) violation of any enactment, statutory Rules and Regulations; (ii) Mala fides or ulterior motives to assist or enable private gain to someone or cause prejudice to anyone; or where the procedure adopted is arbitrary and capricious. An action is said to be arbitrary and capricious, where a person, in particular, a person in authority does any action based on individual discretion by ignoring prescribed rules, procedure or law and the action or decision is founded on prejudice or preference rather than reason or fact. To be termed as arbitrary and capricious, the action must be illogical and whimsical, something without any reasonable explanation. When an action or procedure seeks to achieve a specific objective in furtherance of education in a bona fide manner, by adopting a process which is uniform and nondiscriminatory, it cannot be described as arbitrary or capacious or mala fide."

9. We have also perused the notification dated 14th May 2014, as well as the merit list, produced by Mr. Farooq Hussain Kashmiri, advocate, counsel for the appellant, as per direction of the Court. The total number of seats is 52 and the appellant is placed at serial No.118 of the merit list. He cannot be considered for admission from any angle. As the appellant was not in possession of the required qualification, his application has rightly been rejected, therefore, he was not an aggrieved person to file writ petition in the High Court. The judgment passed by the learned High Court is, therefore, vacated. The appeal is accepted and the writ petition stands dismissed. ZC/42/SC(AJ&K) Appeal allowed.