2000 PLP 535 (CLC)

7. Undeniably the petitioners participated in the Entry Test held on 1‑10‑1998 and could not pass the same. This participation was without protest. The petitioners are, therefore, debarred from turning around and challenging the validity of the test. They acquiesced in the holding of the test and took a chance of getting admission by doing so. In equity, they are estopped from turning around and challenging that very exercise. These petitions can be disposed of on this simple ground alone. Since, however, other arguments as noted, have been raised, I feel it appropriate to assess the same.

8. In the Guide for Admission to Undergraduate Courses for the Academic Session, 1999 issued by the respondent, University the following eligibility criteria has been laid down: (1) General Eligibility Requirements.‑‑‑An applicant for admission to any of the B. Sc. Engineering/B. Sc. /Bachelor's Degree Courses offered by the University must fulfil the following requirements: (a) He should have obtained at least 60 % adjusted admission marks (without NCC & Hafiz‑e‑Qur'an). (b) Entry test has been introduced from the Academic Session, 1999. It would be mandatory for every applicant to obtain Minimum of 50% of marks to become eligible for admission. The marks obtained in the test would, however, not _ be considered for determining the merit for admission. (c) He should be a bona fide resident of the area from where he seeks admission. (d) He should meet standards of physique and eyesight, laid down in the medical certificate F‑III. No Age restrictions. ‑‑‑There is no age restriction for the applicants seeking admission to any Bachelor's degree course. Sex‑‑‑Both male and female persons are eligible to apply for seats shown in the Seats Allocation Chart except Category F which is open for female applicants only."

9. At a matter of fact the recommendation of the Academic Council, dated 3‑3‑1998 (Annexure‑III) was approved by the Syndicate on .18‑4‑1998. The decision is reproduced below: "Item No.4. Admission/Addition in the regulation for admission in the university. 13(a) The Syndicate approved the following recommendations of the Academic Council made in its 186th meeting held on 3‑3‑1998: To raise the standard of education, the Academic Council decided that all applicants, whether locals or foreigners, must have minimum of 60% merit marks (excluding NCC and Hafize Qur'an) to be eligible for admission to undergraduate courses at this University under all categories of admission from the Academic Session, 1998‑99 (Entry 1999). The Academic Council also decided to introduce admission test from the academic session 1998‑99 (Entry 1999) in which it would be mandatory for every applicant to obtain minimum of 50% marks to become eligible for admission. The marks obtained in the admission test would, however, not be considered for determining the merit for admission'."

10. The above clearly establishes that with the approval of the Syndicate on 18‑4‑1998, the recommendation assumed the force of a decision of the University and became applicable immediately. It has not been argued before me that the Academic Council or for that matter Syndicate was not e competently entitled to take such a decision. The provisions of Entry Test, therefore, are valid and holding of the same on 1‑10‑1998 is beyond any legal objection. 11 While relying on the decision of the Academic Council, dated 24‑10‑1998, as approved by the Syndicate on 27‑10‑1998, for argument of retrospectivity Mr. A.K. Dogar, Advocate, is missing the issue. The decision of the Syndicate dated 27‑10‑1998 reflects situation arising out of the judgment of this Court dated 3‑8‑1998 passed in Writ Petition No.29767 of 1997. What had happened was that the Vice‑Chancellor in exercise of his emergency power under section 14 of the Act, prescribed a system of weightage for determining merit of the candidates. Previously the merit was determined on the basis of marks obtained in F.Sc./B.Sc. exclusively but as a result of the decision of the Vice‑Chancellor the marks obtained in Matric were given a weightage of 30 % while those obtained in F.Sc./B.Sc. were reduced to 70 %o . This was challenged by some of the affected candidates who wanted admissions solely on the basis of marks obtained in F.Sc./B.Sc. This 1 Court held that the object achieved by the Vice‑Chancellor by resorting to emergency powers was illegal and he could not bye‑pass the Academic Council and the Syndicate whose exclusive domain it was to frame Regulation for admission. The question of provisions of Entry Test was not ‑at all involved. As noted, the decision to hold Entry Test had already been taken by the Syndicate on 18‑4‑1998. This is one condition which a candidate has to fulfil for obtaining admission. A merit formula had also to be prescribed for preparing a merit list of the eligible candidate viz. those who have passed the Entry Test. The judgment of the Court concerns the question of power of Vice‑Chancellor to prescribe the weightage system. It is this aspect of the admission which has been considered by the Academic Council on 24‑10‑1998 and by the Syndicate on 27‑10‑1998. It is wrong to contend that the decision to hold Entry Test was taken by the Syndicate on 27‑10‑1998. This is factually incorrect. Therefore, I hold that the Entry Test was validly held on 1.10‑1998.

12. The submission of Mr. A.K. Dogar, Advocate, that the performance of a candidate in the Entry Test should also be given due weightage, has to be rejected as it is not for this Court to advise on the matter of policy. It is for the Academic Council to take such a decision. In their wisdom they have decided "the marks obtained in the admission test would, however, not be considered for determining the merit for admission." This Court cannot impose its wisdom on the Honourable Members of Academic Council and Syndicate. This Court is concerned with the legality of the provisions. What it should or ought to be is for the University to prescribe.

13. The other argument as to the change in marking system is equally of no avail to the petitioners. Apart from the fact that the petitioners have not been to show that if the marking was done as being pressed by them, they would have passed the test, it is clear that the entire lot of examinees were subjected to the same and identical marking system and no examinee was discriminated against. In fact doing away of the negative marking could only prove more helpful to the examinees. In PLD 1962 SC :35, it has been held that no examinee has a vested right in any system of examination or marking.

14. Nothing turns on invocation of Article 37 of the Constitution. Article 37 is appearing in the Chapter of Principles of Policy and clearly is not creating an enforceable right. Further, it has not been shown as to how Article 37 of the Constitution is at all relevant to the controversy arising in these petitions. If it is the case of Mr. Dogar that Article 37 of the Constitution enjoins the State to promote and ensure merit, I venture to say that the provision of Entry Test is a step in the right direction. For this purpose, I respectfully follow the judgment of the Supreme Court (supra).

15. Similarly nothing turns on the submission that the examination ought to have been held by the Controller and not by the Admission Committee. Although the petitioner is estopped from urging this, I see no harm, subject to all just exceptions, if to ensure the success of new experiment of Entry Test a Committee of Senior Academics/Professors/ Administrators is constituted to oversee the exercise.

16. For all that has been stated above, there is no merit in these petitions which are hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑1284/L Petitions dismissed.