P L D 1991 Peshawar 7 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN JEHANGIRI, J.‑‑The petitioner passed his BA. Examination in the year 1986. Later on, he appeared in 1987 (Annual Examination) for qualifying two additional subjects viz. Economics and Mathematics‑A with a view to equipping himself with the qualification prescribed for course of M.B.A. in the Gomal University, D.I.Khan. He claimed to be entitled to admission to the M.B.A. Class of the University on the basis of the admission notice, Annexe‑A/9. The petitioner appeared for interview before the Admission Committee (respondent No.2) on the date specified in the aforesaid notice but was declined admission on the ground that he had qualified his B.A. examination in the year 1986.

2. The petitioner has challenged this decision of respondents 1 to 3 by means of this constitutional petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 4 to 7 have been admitted to the M.B.A. Course, while the petitioner was declined on the ground that he was ineligible having passed his B.A. examination in the year 1986, and not in the year 1987 Annual and Supplementary Examination and 1988 Annual Examination.

3. During the course of pre‑hearing, report and para‑wise comments were called for from the respondents and for the interregnum, provisional admission was granted to the petitioner at his own risk and cost. Respondents have submitted their report and para‑wise comments. The stance qua .their inability to admit the petitioner to the M.B.A. Programme adopted by the respondents was that upon his own showing, the petitioner had passed his BA. examination in the year 1986 and, therefore, in pursuance of the minutes (Annex.C/1) of the 13th meeting of the Academic Council, the combined batches of 1986 (Annual and Supplementary) and 1987 (Annual) were only eligible for admission to the Post‑Graduate Programme 1988‑89/1989‑90.

4. In support of this petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; has made the following submissions:‑ (a) That the denial of admission to the petitioner is based on mala fides and respondents 1 to 3 by denying admission to the petitioner have acted in gross violation of the Fundamental Law, Regulations and Part II of the Prospectus; . (b) that the petitioner's right to be admitted to M.B.A. Programme is duly endorsed by Admission Regulations (Approved by the Syndicate) Part II of the Prospectus and the Constitution. Hence the petitioner was illegitimately denied the opportunity to join M.B.A. Programme and this act on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 is not only lacking lawful authority, but is also without jurisdiction; (c) that the self‑styled criterion of admission fabricated and carved out by respondents 1 to 3 forming the basis of current year Admission Policy is against law and violative of the universally accepted principles of natural justice, because the candidates with low merit have been accommodated at the cost of the petitioner and have also been given undue preference over him; (d) that the petitioner's application was rejected and he was declared ineligible for admission by respondent No.2, merely because he did not qualify his BA. Examination in either of the two Sessions viz. 1987‑88 Sessions. That the criterion adopted by respondents 1 to 3 is based on an irrational administrative approach and designed to appease the mysterious machinations of the University authorities. All that has resulted in grave injustice to the petitioner, moresoever, in view of the petitioner's high merit.

5. Mr. Ejaz Muhammad Khan, the learned Assistant Advocate‑General, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has reiterated the same grounds in support of the impugned order, which the answering respondents had taken up in their para‑wise comments.

6. We have decided to refrain from making any observation one way or the other over the contention raised by Mr. Gohar Zaman Khan Kundi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that the admission policy circumscribed by certain period of examination passed by a candidate for University Examination was in violation of the principles of natural justice, lest it should create some complications for the answering respondents in the near future. Suffice to say at this stage, to which the learned counsel for the answering respondents has also conceded, that the only question falling for determination is whether the petitioner would be deemed to have qualified for admission in the year 1986 when he passed his BA. Examination, or in the Annual Examination of the year 1987 whereby he qualified two additional subjects viz. Economics and Mathematics‑A. The learned counsel for the answering respondents has not, however, been able to pursuade us to endorse this decision taken by the answering respondents. It would be very anomalous to hold that a candidate who has appeared in Annual Examination of the year 1987 for qualifying two additional subjects merely to get admission of M.B.A. Programme during the Session 1988‑89 should be held to have qualified his graduation in the year 1986 when he had already passed his B.A. Examination in the subjects other than Economics and Mathematics‑A. It would be quite irrational to subscribe to the A view held by the answering respondents in this particular case. The case of the petitioner has all along been that merely to equip himself with the qualification for admission in the M.B.A. Programme of the Session 1988‑89, he appeared and passed in the two additional subjects of Economics and Mathematics‑A in the Annual Examination of the year 1987. 7 The refusal by answering respondents 1 to 3 to grant admission to the petitioner in the M.B.A. Programme of the year 1988‑89 on the ground that he had passed his B.A. Examination in the year 1986 ignoring all together his efforts to qualify himself in the Annual Examination of the year 1987 in the two additional subjects is, therefore, without lawful authority and would be of no legal effect. This is the only reasonable hypothesis which could be taken into consideration in respect of this matter. The stance taken by the answering respondents, if allowed to prevail, would frustrate the prospects of higher education in Universities and other Educational Institutions of the country. The petitioner could not be legally disqualified merely because he has initially passed his B.A. Examination earlier than the specified period in the announcement for admission and had qualified the additional subjects during the period advertised in the admission notice.

8. The result, therefore, is that the petitioner was qualified to be taken up as M.B.A. student and since he had greater number of marks as opposed to respondents 4 to 7, he should have been first considered and admitted. We accordingly direct respondents 1 to 3 that the petitioner should be allowed to complete his course of M.B.A. for the relevant Session. We are also satisfied to learn that the answering respondents would be able to accommodate the petitioner and respondents 4 to 7, as they are already admitted in that course.

9. For the reasons stated above, this petition is accepted in the above terms with no order as to costs. A.A./1130/P Petition accepted.