1. ' The petitioner No.1 passed her B.A. Examination in IIIrd Division and was admitted to join the B.L.
2. Course at the respondent No.2 on 18-7-2005. Similarly as stated in the petition, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were admitted on. 10-8-2005 and petitioner No.4 on 13-9-2005. Nevertheless all the four petitioners possessed Master Degree in First and Second Divisions.
3. ' When the petitioners who are likely to take their first final examination, the respondent No.2 declined to issue them enrollment cards on the pretext that their admissions were ab initio, invalid.
4. Reliance was placed upon Article 28 of Rules of Admission to LL.B Degree which detail as follows:-- '28 Bachelor of laws (LL.B.)
5. ' Science or Commerce: B.
0. L.,Sc. (Agr.), Bachelor of Engineering' B.Sc. In Home Economics, B.Sc. Animal Husbandry or V eter.
6. SC; M. B. B. S. Bachelor of Dental Surgery; Higher National Diploma in Business Studies from the Deptt. Of Education Science, U.K., B. Pharmacy, Bachelor of Theology.
7. ' Mr. Minhajul Farooqi learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance 'upon the DEAN's Committee's letter dated ' Mr. Minhajul Farooqi learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance 'upon the DEAN's Committee's letter dated 19-5-2005 and the Ultimate Resolution No.8 of the Academic Council dated 22-9-2005 whereby it was decided that those candidates who had graduated in IIIrd Division but were accorded admission in B.L. Part I, would be issued enrollment cards as a special case but a further direction was issued that all Law Colleges would in future accord admissions to only those candidates who had graduated in Second Division.
8. ' Mr. Muhammad Tasneem learned counsel for respondent No.2 strenuously argued that Law Colleges including respondent No.3 had been definitely restrained from admitting IIIrd Division in B.L. Course. The argument, however, seems to have no force inasmuch as resolution of the academic council was passed on 22-8-2005 and notified on 23-9-2005 and could not he given retrospective effect. On the contrary students admitted prior to the resolution as a special case were exempted from this condition. Mr. Khurshid Hashmi learned counsel for respondent No.3 has clearly supported the petitioners case. Though, the case of petitioner No.1 is absolutely free from doubt as she was admittedly accorded admission prior to the resolution. Some doubts might arise with respect to the varying dates of admissions of petitioners Nos.2 to 4 mentioned in the memo. Of petition and the parawise comments from respondent No.2. Nevertheless, Mr. Khurshid Hashmi urged that all these petitioners have subsequently obtained Master's. Degree in first or second divisions; they did qualify the minimum threshold and were entitled to admission and enrollment.
9. There seems to be merit in the contention inasmuch as a second class Bachelor degree in any discipline and is only minimum threshold in terms of relevant rules and therefore, if a person subsequently acquired a higher qualification i.e. a Master Degree in first and second division the disability ought to be treated as having been removed.
10. ' For the foregoing reasons, we would allow this petition and direct the respondent No.2 to issue Enrollment Cards. It is nevertheless important for Law Colleges to observe the condition for admission and not accord admission to anybody possessing a IIIrd Class Degree.