SYED JAMSHED A L.I, J.- This judgment will dispose of W.P. No. 507/2003 and 20788/2002 as common questions of law and fact are involved in both the cases.
2. Since the parties are duly represented and have been heard at length, these two cases are being disposed of as Pacca matters.
3. Muhammad Zaka Amad, petitioner in W.P. No. 507/2003 is contender for admission in the University of Engineering and Technology (UET), Lahore as a nominee of the Govt, of Balochistan. He has been denied admission on the ground that he does not possess 60% aggregate adjusted marks.
4. The petitioner in W.P. No. 20788/2002 is contender for admission on the self finance basis . His application for admission has not been entertained on he ground that his aggregate adjusted marks were less than 60%.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 507/2003, submits that according to regulation No. 42.2 of the Prospectus of University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore for the year 2003, the eligibility threshold for admission to the said University is 50% aggregate adjusted marks. The formula to work out the adjusted aggregate marks has also been indicated in the prospectus. He submits that the aggregate adjusted marks indicated in the recommendation of the Director of Colleges, Higher and Technical Education, Balochistan, were 49.56. However, he maintains that in accordance with formula of the U.E.T. His adjusted aggregate marks worked out to 53.70%. It was so averred in paragraph 8 of the writ petition but has not been controverted in the report and parawise comments submitted by the respondents, In the alternative he submits that 49.56 marks indicated in the aforesaid recommendation ought to have been taken as 50 as the fraction beyond 50 counts for one full mark.
6. In W.P. No. 20788/2002, the plea being raised is that the aggregate adjusted marks of the petitioner were 50.153% and in accordance with Clause 42.2 of the Prospectus he was entitled to admission in the said University.
7 Syed Sajjad Hussain, Advocate, who appears for the respondents, has submitted that the Vice- Chancellor, with the approval of the Chancellor , had decided that aggregate adjusted marks would be 60% and, therefore, none of the two petitioners was eligible for admission, It was pointed out by him that the Balochistan authorities had recommended 11 candidates out of which only one had 86 marks while the other 10 including Muhammad Zaka Amad, petitioner had less than 60% marks. However, to honour the recommendation of the Balochistan authorities it was decided to accommodate those nominees of the Balochistan Govt, who had first Division in F.SC. And that even on that criterion Muhammad Zaka Amad, petitioner was not entitled to admission.
8. About Asmatullah Naveed, petitioner in W.P. No. 20788/2002, he maintains that even on the basis of 53.143% aggregate adjusted marks he would not be entitled to admission on merits against the seats reserved for admission on self-finance basis.
9. The submissions made by the learned counsel, for the parties have been considered. Admission to the U.E.T. Is governed by the Regulation framed under Section 30 of the University of 'Engineering and Technology, Lahore Act (Punjab Act No. V), 1974. According to sub-section (2) of. Section 30, the Regulations shall be prepared by the Academic Council and require approval of the Syndicate.
Section 31 of the said Act provides that "the procedure for adding to or amending or repealing the Statutes or Regulation shall be the same as that prescribed respectively for framing or making such Statutes and Regulations". The Prospectus which prescribes the admission procedure and the eligibility threshold, will be deemed to be Regulations framed under Section 30 of the said Act.
Therefore, it could only be amended after following the procedure prescribed in Section 31 of the aforesaid Act and could not be modified by any executive order or the decision of the Vice- Chancellor even with the approval of the Chancellor.
10. When questioned the learned counsel tor the respondents, frankly conceded that 49.56% adjusted aggregate marks were to be treated as 50% although the learned counsel for the - petitioner for Muhammad Zaka Amad, on the basis of marks in F.SC. And the entry test demonstrated that he had 53.075% adjusted aggregate marks according to the formula given in the prospectus of the U.E.T.
11. In view of the above, subject to the verification of the documents of Muhammad Zaka Amad- petitioner in W.P. No. 507/2003, he was entitled to admission in the U.E.T. In accordance with the eligibility threshold in regulation No. 42.2, while Asmat Ullah Naheed, petitioner in W.P. No. 20788/2002 was also eligible to apply for, admission as he had 53.143% adjusted aggregate marks.
12. For what has been stated above, W.P. No. 507/2003 is partly allowed with the direction that his admission form shall .Be duly processed ignoring the decision requiring 60% adjusted aggregate marks. W.P. No. 20788/2002 is disposed of with the direction that the application of Asmat Ullah Naveed, petitioner shall be entertained and processed on the same basis. No order as to costs.