2014 PLP 1429 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR — Petitioner Versus VICE-CHANCELLOR, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE UNIVERSITY, LAHORE and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 1429 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR — Petitioner Versus VICE-CHANCELLOR, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE UNIVERSITY, LAHORE and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 1429 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP 1429 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 1429 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR — Petitioner Versus VICE-CHANCELLOR, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE UNIVERSITY, LAHORE and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Waqar Hussain Naqvi for Petitioner.
- Ali Husnain for Respondents.
- Anees Ahmad Sajid for Respondent No.4.
- 4. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent/university submits that the petitioner had obtained admission by way of cheating and fraud; that the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite criteria as laid down in the advertisement; that the petitioner intentionally avoided to submit final transcript and submitted a copy of his B.Sc. Hons. degree which did not contain detail marks/CGPA; that the petitioner was granted admission provisionally and it was categorically mentioned in the merit list that his admission would be confirmed after verification of his result card; that upon receipt of result card it was found that the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite criteria as such his admission was cancelled.
- We find ourselves in full agreement with the conclusion drawn by the learned Sindh High Court in the impugned judgment. Even before us the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner-University could not explain as to why the university slept on the eligibility of respondent No.1 to be granted admission for almost two and a half years till he had completed the program with flying colours and his name was mentioned in the list of successful candidates and why the sudden awakening. He could also not state with any amount of certainty whether any action was taken against any of the staff members, who according to him were instrumental in grant of this illegal admission to the respondent No.1. We, are therefore, of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be punished after more than two and a half years of the alleged illegal admission when this issue was never taken up during the tenure of the program. We, therefore, find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused."
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Cancellation of admission after completion of degree
Petitioner was admitted to Masters course after fulfilling the advertised criteria for admission, which was a Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) of 2.5/4.00 in Bachelors degree or 60% marks in the annual system
Petitioner successfully completed his Masters course and submitted his thesis, whereafter University authorities issued a notification cancelling admission of petitioner on the basis that he did not meet the admission criteria for the Master's degree
Contentions of University were that at the time of admission petitioner did not submit his final transcript and submitted a copy of his Bachelor's degree which did not contain detailed marks or CGPA; that petitioner was granted admission provisionally and it was mentioned in the merit list that admission would be confirmed after verification of result card, and that upon receipt of result card it was found that petitioner did not fulfil the requisite criteria
Contention of university authorities that petitioner was granted provisional admission was not borne out from the record
University had not laid down any term or condition regarding provisional admission in the advertisement nor the merit list was produced in court, on basis of which petitioner was allegedly granted provisional admission
Record did not show that University ever required petitioner to produce his final transcript of Bachelor's degree
Even if the final transcript was mandatory and was required for admission, then it was not difficult for the University to obtain the same through its own channels as admittedly the petitioner had also obtained his Bachelor's degree from the same University
No explanation was offered as to why University made no effort to verify antecedents of the petitioner during the two years he had spent in the course of Master's degree
Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances and notification whereby admission of petitioner was cancelled was declared to be illegal and without lawful authority, and admission of petitioner was restored.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.
Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner prays as under:
"In view of the above said submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that the instant writ petition may kindly be accepted and a direction be issued to respondent No.1 to restore the admission of the petitioner in MS Pharmaceutical Chemistry for 2009 to 2011 and to issue the Result Card of the petitioner immediately. It is further prayed that the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to receive the Research Work of the petitioner and to conduct the Viva through an independent External Examiner except the respondent No.4. Any other appropriate relief which this honourable court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be awarded."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent/ University invited applications from the students for the program of MS Pharmaceutical Chemistry through public newspaper; that according to the advertisement criteria for admission in the said subject was 2.5/4.00 GPA or 60% marks in annual system; that being eligible the petitioner applied for admission and in entry test and viva he secured 6th position in the merit list and he was granted admission; that the petitioner attended regular classes and obtained 3.04 GPA out of 4 in the first semester and 2.61 GPA in the second semester; that thereafter the petitioner was allowed to do research work and his supervisor/respondent allotted him topic for research; that according to the criteria the petitioner was declared successful in three progress reports and he was allowed to submit thesis; that the respondent/ university instead of issuing notification for acceptance of thesis and declaring final result of MS Pharmaceutical Chemistry, to his utter surprise issued notification dated 27-10-2011 according to which admission of the petitioner was cancelled and his name was removed from the University Roll on the pretext of having low CGPA in B.Sc. (Hons).
3. According to the learned counsel this act of the respondent/ university is tainted with mala fide and ulterior motive; that according to the terms and conditions of the advertisement a candidate possessing 2.5/4.00 GPA or 60% marks was eligible to apply; that the petitioner has obtained 68.89 % marks in B.Sc. Hons. as such fulfilled the criteria for admission; that the petitioner duly submitted the result card after one month of admission and at the relevant time no objection was raised about his eligibility for admission; that when the petitioner spent his two precious years in completing theoretical and research work the respondent/ university cancelled his admission on account of some internal rift between the petitioner and respondent No.4.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent/university submits that the petitioner had obtained admission by way of cheating and fraud; that the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite criteria as laid down in the advertisement; that the petitioner intentionally avoided to submit final transcript and submitted a copy of his B.Sc. Hons. degree which did not contain detail marks/CGPA; that the petitioner was granted admission provisionally and it was categorically mentioned in the merit list that his admission would be confirmed after verification of his result card; that upon receipt of result card it was found that the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite criteria as such his admission was cancelled.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner obtained admission in MS Pharmaceutical for the session 2009-11 and has completed all his theoretical/research work. The contention of the respondent/university that the admission was granted to the petitioner provisionally is not borne out from the record. From perusal of the available record it reveals that the respondent/university had neither laid down any term and condition regarding provisional admission in the advertisement nor they produced in the Court the merit list in which allegedly the petitioner was granted admission on provisional basis. There is also nothing on the record from which it could be inferred that the respondent/university ever required the petitioner to produce his final transcript of B.Sc. Hons. Even if the final transcript was so mandatory in order to confirm the admission of the petitioner it was not difficult for the respondent/ university to get it through their own channel as admittedly the petitioner has also obtained degree of B.Sc. Hons. from the same university. There is no explanation as to why the university administration has not made any effort for verification of the antecedents of the petitioner in the first two sessions and when the petitioner after spending two years on theoretical/research work was awaiting his result, the impugned notification cancelling his result on the pretext of having low CGPA was issued. In case reported as University of Karachi and others v. Tariq Hussain and others (2012 SCMR 1694) in an identical case where a student successfully completed the Master's degree program but the university authorities refused to issue him degree on the pretext that he was not eligible for admission to the program, the learned Sindh High Court accepted the constitutional petition of the student and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan refused to grant leave to appeal against the said judgment while observing as under:
We find ourselves in full agreement with the conclusion drawn by the learned Sindh High Court in the impugned judgment. Even before us the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner-University could not explain as to why the university slept on the eligibility of respondent No.1 to be granted admission for almost two and a half years till he had completed the program with flying colours and his name was mentioned in the list of successful candidates and why the sudden awakening. He could also not state with any amount of certainty whether any action was taken against any of the staff members, who according to him were instrumental in grant of this illegal admission to the respondent No.1. We, are therefore, of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be punished after more than two and a half years of the alleged illegal admission when this issue was never taken up during the tenure of the program. We, therefore, find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused."
7. For the reasons discussed above and in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case referred above, this writ petition is allowed as a result whereof notification of the respondent/ university dated 27-10-211 regarding cancellation of admission of the petitioner is declared illegal and without lawful authority. The same is set aside and admission of the petitioner is restored. MWA/M-258/L Petition allowe