1990 PLP 2120 (MLD)

AJMAL MIAN, CJ.‑‑The petitioner passed her BA. Examination 1983 from the University of Karachi and stood First Class Second in the University as a whole. She applied for admission on 10‑6‑1989 for the academic session 1989‑90 in MA. Previous English, second option given by the petitioner was in International Relation. When the list of the selected candidates for the admission of M.A. Previous English was pasted on the University Notice Board on 8‑7‑1989, it was discovered by the petitioner that her name was not included. According to the averment in the petition, the petitioner contacted the various personnel of the University functionaries but since no redress was granted, she filed the present petition. In the above petition she has prayed for the following relief:‑‑ "(a) It is, therefore, prayed that the hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the categories published in the said admission list prepared by the respondent is without any lawful authority, without jurisdiction, illegal and against the law and Rules. (b) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the said admission list/lists. (c) Any other relief and/reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deem fit under the circumstances of the case."

2. The above petition has been opposed by the official respondents inasmuch as counter‑affidavit has been filed inter alia by Mr. M. Fazeel Siddiqui, the Chairman of the Admission Technical Committee, in which in para. (3) the following averments have been made: "(3) That I was Chairman of the Admission Technical Committee. My function was to feed the Computer with the formula of each department and the particulars of the applicants and to get the results about the selected candidates in each subject from the Computer. The following was the formula: (1) English Compulsory + English Optional 45% and above 45% and above (2) English Compulsory + English Optional 45% and above 33% to 44% (3) English Compulsory 45% and above Admissions in this Department were awarded on priority basis according A,,, to the above formula."

3. In support of the above petition Mr. Asad Ali Bilgrami, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since in the admission regulations framed by the Academic Council, there was no other qualification as to the entitlement to admission to M.A. Previous English which have been referred ton the above quoted para. (3), the: petitioner being the applicant, who stood second in the whole University in B.A. Examinations, should have been granted admission. On the other hand, Mr. Azhar Ali Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the regulations provide broad base for qualifying to apply for admission and they do not contain the detail of criteria on which the admission is to be granted and the question that who is to be given preference utter se between the applicants is to be determined and, therefore, the criteria provided for deciding the question of preference inter se between the applicants is a bona fide act on the part of the Teaching Department.

4. In order to appreciate the above contention, it may be pertinent to refer to the relevant provisions of the University of Karachi Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It may be pertinent to mention that Section 24 contemplates the constitution of an Academic Council which comprises of the Vice‑Chancellor as the Chairman and the other functionaries named in clauses (ia) to (xv), whereas Section 15 defines powers and duties of the Academic Council by providing that the Academic Council shall be the Academic Body of the University and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, have the power to lay down proper standards of instruction, research and examinations and to regulate and promote the Academic life of the University and the Colleges, whereas subsection (2) of the above section 25 provides that without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers and subject to the provisions of this Act, and the Statutes, the Academic Council shall have the p9wers inter alia to regulate the admission of students to the courses of studies and examination in the University. In pursuance of the above power conferred on the Academic Council admission regulations have been framed. Para. (7) of the Schedule to Regulations deals with the admission of M.A. Previous and provides the basic qualifications required for making an application for admission. It may be advantageous to reproduce hereinbelow the above para. (7):‑‑ "7, M.A. (Previous). B.A., B.Sc. B Com. or B Sc. in Home Economics; Degree in Medicine, Vet. Medicine, Vet Science, Engineering or Agriculture or Pharmacy or B. Sc. Ind. Tech. Nawabshah: A student who pastes the Law Examination after BA. in English only shall be eligible for admission to MA. (Prev.) class in Pol. Science." It is evident form the above‑quoted para (7) that it does not provide the criteria for the purpose of determining the preference inter se between the various applicants. One view can be that the above criteria is to be provided by the Academic Council itself and the other view can be that it is to be worked out by the Teaching Department itself being more conversant with the subject concerned. Even if we were to opt for the latter view, we arc included to hold that the applicants are entitled to be told before inviting applications, the basis on which the question of preference inter se between the applicants was to be determined. In the absence of such disclosure the applicants are entitled to claim admission on the basis of their overall performance. In the instant case it is an admitted position that the petitioner was not told that her application would be considered on the basis of the criteria referred to in para (3) of the counter affidavit of the Chairman, Admission Technical Committee reproduced hereinabove. We may point out that category No.2 in fact was added on 25‑9‑1989 whereas the applications were invited on 10‑6‑1989. If the question of preference is left to be determined after receipt of applications, it will lead to uncertainty ands will leave sufficient scope for manipulation.

5. Since the petitioner had secured second position in the B.A. in the University, as a whole as she was not conveyed the above criteria nor this was a part of the Regulations framed by the Academic Council, in our view she was entitled to admission. However, we would not like to dislodge any of the students already granted admission on the basis of the above criteria, their admissions may be kept intact but we would order that the petitioner may be accommodated in the M.A. (Previous) English. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1195/K Order accordingly,