1984 PLP 2093 (CLC)

‑‑ Art. 9‑Resolution of Government of Pakistan, dated 28th June, 1975 ‑ Rules 3 (ii) (xv) & (xvi) & 5 ‑ Educational institution --Prospectus for admission to College‑Changes without approval of Government of no legal effect‑Resolutions of Board of Governors including delegation of powers by Board to Executive Com mittee to take effect only after approval of Government of Pakistan --Executive Committee making alteration by Resolution in criteria for admission to college--Held : Executive Committee had no authority to make such changes nor Board of Governors could delegate such powers to Executive Committee without approval of Government‑Post facto confirmation of Resolution by Board of Governors of no effect unless same approved by Government‑Board of Governors itself could not make any changes in rules of admission which had been published under authority of Government of Pakistan unless approved by it‑Resolution of Executive Committee changing prospectus for admission declared without lawful authority. MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.‑The Petitioner has prayed for a direction to grant admission to the petitioner in First Year academic session of 1983‑84 of respondent No. 1's college on the ground that the change and alteration in the prospects made by the respondent for admission in the First Year of all Branches of Engineering of 1983‑84 were illegal and void. A declaration to that effect is also sought. The submission of the petitioner is that the representation had been made that the criteria for admission to academic year 1983‑84 First Year would be as under; (1) B.Sc. with Mathematic, Physics and Chemistry. (2) Mathematics, Physics and Statics or . (3) Mathematics, Chemistry and Statistics in First Division marks with H.S.C. with Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry with First Division/Second Division. (4) H.S.C. with Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry in First Division marks. (5) B. Sc. Second Division, F. Se. First Division/Second Division marks. (6) H.S.C. Second Division. It is admitted position that the Petitioner is a B. Sc. First Divisioner and, therefore, according to the petitioner since only 30 to 35 students had applied for admission, therefore, the petitioner was bound to be selected in view of the representation made by the respondent earlier. The petitioner has contended that the list of the selected students shows that only five B. Sc. students could be selected for admission although the preference had to be given to B. Sc. students but it appears that preference is now being given to F Sc. students. In the comments of the respondent it was alleged that the‑ respondent institution is affiliated with N. E. D. University of Engineering and Technology which has fixed the criteria that only 6 % seats out of total are to be assigned for candidates possessing B. Sc. first division. The respon dent has, therefore, through their Executive Committee passed a resolution that 6% seats be earmarked for B. Sc. passed candidates by their Executive Committee on 12th of June, 1983. The petitioner has contended that the respondent being a Government institution they are governed by the rules framed for them by the Government and the instructions issued by the Government. It is contended that in the application for admission for the academic year 1982‑83 as well as for 1983‑84 the criteria was that B. Sc. first divisioners were to be preferred and on that basis the applications were required which had to be submitted by 25th June, 1983 but without any authority from the Board of Governors of the respondent institution the Executive Committee changed the admission policy and gave preference to F. Sc. students with the result that the peti tioner could not be selected. It is an admitted position that upto 12th of June, 1983 the B.Sc. passed candidates had been given a preference in the admission form of respondent institution for 1983‑84 which is Annexure `E' to the petition and is issued under the authority of Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan. It is not denied that if same criteria had continued then the petitioner would have been selected as there were 80 merit seats for Karachi and only about 35 B. Sc. passed students including the petitioner had applied. The respon dent has sought shelter behind the amendments made to the criteria of admission by its Executive Committee on 12th June, 1983 which in itself is based upon the criteria fixed by the N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology. However, it was never asserted that the respondent college could not in any case deviate from the criteria fixed by N.E.D. University and hence it could frame its own policy for admission as directed by the Central Government. Mr. Sami Ahmed has submitted that the Executive Committee was not empowered do 12th June, 1983 to pass the resolution which it did by chang ing the criteria. He further stated that the Board of Governors was not competent to delegate the rule‑making powers to the Executive Committee without special resolution of the Ministry, which is completely lacking in this case. Mr. Atta‑ur‑Rehman had pointed out that the Board of Governors had empowered /delegated its powers to the Executive Committee to make such amendments which were necessary by resolution No. 5‑C of 20th December, 1972. The question is a short one in this case. The admission policy of res pondent college is under the control of the Government of Pakistan. This college is administered by the Government of Pakistan through a Board of Governors and an Executive Committee. The powers of the Board of Governors and the Executive Committee are clearly defined in rules as specified in the resolution of the Government of Pakistan, dated 28th June, 1975 published in Gazette of Pakistan rule 3(d) provides that all resolutions of the Board of Governors are to take effect after approval of Govern ment of Pakistan. Sub‑rule (xv) of Rule 3 authorises the Board to consider any amendments in the rules and regulations but the same is also subject to the approval of the Government of Pakistan, Sub‑rule (xvi) authorises the Board to delegate any of its powers to any body of persons. Rule 5(i) authorises the Executive Committee to exercise all such powers as may be delegated to it by the Board of Governors from time to time by special resolution of the Ministry. The position, therefore, emerges that any delegation of the powers of the Board of Governors to the Executive Com mittee was to be first approved by the Government of Pakistan and we do not have any approval from the Government of Pakistan before us in respect of the delegation of powers by the Board of Governors to the Executive, Committee. Moreover, the Board of Governors itself could not make any changes in the rules of admission which had been published under the autho rity of the Government of Pakistan unless it had received approval of the Government of Pakistan to that effect. Consequently the Executive Committee had no authority to make any changes in the rules of admission as it did on 12th June, 1983. The post facto confirmation of resolution of 12th June, 1983 by the Board of Governors in their meeting on 3rd November, 1983 by resolution No. B.G.‑4 (a) was also of no effect unless and until the same had been approved and confirmed by the Government of Pakistan but no such confirmation is available on record. Mr. Atta‑ur‑Rehman had sought to rely upon a resolution of the Board of Governors, dated 10th March, 1980 whereby resolution No. 5‑C power had been delegated by the Board of Governors to the Executive Committee to exercise the powers of the Board of Governors in future and place it before the Board of Governors But this resolution No. 5‑C of 10th March, 1980 is of no effect until and unless it had been approved by the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Education as prescribed in rule 3(xv) of the rules framed by the Govern ment of Pakistan in its resolution, dated 18th June, 1975. Therefore, from whatever angle we may consider, the position is that resolution of the Executive Committee, dated 12th June, 1983 does no appear to be in accordance with the rules framed by the Government in respect of respondent No. 1 and the same is hereby declared to be without lawful authority. We are not making any direction in respect of admission of the petitioner in view of the fact that the admission to the college has been closed and other students have been admitted to the class who are not respondents before us in this petition and, therefore, we cannot direct that a particular student be taken off the rolls and the petitioner may be taken in its place. It would be for the respondent No. I to make feasible arrange ments for admission of the petitioner in view of the declaration made in this petition. Petition is partly allowed without any order as to costs. M. B. A. Petition accepted.