' SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J.---Admitted facts are that petitioner on the basis of a public Admission Notice (2002-2003) appearing in the newspaper in the year, 2002 issued by Bahauddin Zakariya University for M.Phil/Ph.D. Applied for the said course through an application dated 30-12-2002. The programme thereafter commenced and the petitioner started the M.Phil classes. The petitioner passed his M.Phil in Physics in the year 2006 and his result card is dated 1-3-2006. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for registration in Ph.D. And was informed vide letter dated 18-4-2007 that he is subject to New Rules which required the petitioner to do the following:-
(1) Course work of 18 credit hours.
(2) Qualifying the test of International GRE (subject).
(3) A comprehensive examination conducted by the Department concerned.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was enrolled into the composite programme of M.Phil/Ph.D. In the year 2003 and, therefore, the New Rules were not applicable to his case. The counsel referred to the public Admission Notice which was for the joint programme of M.Phil and Ph.D. Because the eligibility criteria given was only for entrance into M.Phil and not for direct admission in Ph.D. He further submitted that respondents Nos. 4 to 8 who joined similar programme, however, in different subjects were not subjected to these "New Rules" and, therefore, the petitioner has been singled out and is being discriminated. He referred to letter dated 24-8- 2007 to show that New Rules were not applied to respondents Nos. 7 and 8 in this regard. Petitioner made a request/appeal to the Vice-Chancellor regarding the issue in hand, however, the Board rejected the request/appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 20-1-2009 which has been impugned in this petition. Counsel relied upon re. Muhammad Ishaque Soomro v. Water and Power Development Authority and another 1990 SCMR 924; re. Messers Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid-eAzam International Airport, Karachi and others 1998 SCMR 2268, re. S.H.M.
Rizvi, and 5 others v. Maqsood Ahmad and 6 others PLD 1981 SC 612, re. Muhammad Asif Ikram and others v. Central Manager, Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Limited (PTCL) and others 2009 PLC (C.S.) 721; re. Ahmad Latif Oureshi v. Controller of Examination, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another PLD 1994 Lah. 3; re. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary Sindh Karachi and 4 others v. Gul Muhammad Hajano 2003 SCMR 325.
3. Counsel for the respondent/University on the other hand submitted that the M.Phil and Ph.D.
Were two different programmes and the University did not offer composite programme. He referred to the admission form of the petitioner for the Ph.D. Programme dated 19-7-2007 and submitted that it was a fresh admission and had no co-relation with the M.Phil done earlier. He further submitted that under notification dated 1-12-2005 the New Rules were introduced superseding The Old Rules dated 23-11-2002. As the petitioner had applied afresh for Ph.D. In the year, 2003, the New Rules were fully applicable to his case. He further submitted that the University can amend the Rules and Regulations and, therefore, the petitioner has no vested right in the earlier Rules. Counsel relied upon re. Shafique Ahmed and others v. Government of Punjab and others, (PLD 2004 SC 168), re. Rashid Nawaz and 7 others v. University of the Punjab through Vice- Chancellor, Lahore and 3 others, (PLD 2007 Lahore 78), re. Imtiaz Ahmed and others v. Punjab Public Service Commission through Secretary, Lahore and others, (PLD 2006 SC 472) and re. Muhammad Faisal Haseeb Khan Baloch and 2 others v. Vice-Chancellor Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University, Multan and 2 others, (2006 YLR 413).
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. The sole question for determination is whether the New Rules of M.Phil/Ph.D. Programme announced on 1-12-2005 by the University are applicable to the case of the petitioner who was admitted to the M.Phil/Ph.D. Programme in the year 2003 especially when similarly placed students have been subjected to the Old Rules announced in the year 2002.
6. On the basis of the public Admission Notice calling applications for M.Phil/Ph.D. Courses, the petitioner applied for the said course in the subject of physics and was granted admission in the Ph.D. Programme vide letter dated 8-1-2003 which records the date of admission of the petitioner to be 7-1-2003 in the "Ph.D. Programme". The said letter has been issued by the Chairman of the Department of Physics of the University. Thereafter, the petitioner qualified his M.Phil. In the year 2006 and applied for registration into the Ph.D. Part of the programme. Through the impugned action the petitioner was subjected to New Rules at the time of the said registration.
7. Prospectus of the University for the year 2003 and the portion dealing with department of Physics (Page 88) provides for the Ph.D/M.Phil. Programme which states:- "The university has recently introduced an M.Phil leading to Ph.D. Program."
7-A. The advertisement given by the University as well as letters issued to the petitioner especially letter dated 8-1-2003 regarding the admission of the petitioner into the Ph.D. Programme clearly establishes that MPhil/Ph.D. Programme is a composite programme, therefore the registration into the remaining part of Ph.D. Programme was a procedural step and did not affect the continuation of the programme that was initiated in the year 2003 as letter dated 8-1-2003 of the University establishes.
8. Another aspect of the case is that the University had earlier applied the New Rules to respondents Nos. 6 and 8 also. However, that decision was overturned and vides letters dated 24- 8-2007 and 28-1-2008 respondents Nos.6 and 8 who were admitted to Ph.D. Programme in April, 2004 were subjected to the Old Rules. The petitioner was granted admission in the Ph.D.
Programme in January 2003 which was prior to the case of the above mentioned respondents. Still he was subjected to the New Rules. This amounts to discrimination as similarly placed Ph.D.
Students have been meted out different treatment.
9. Letter dated 1-12-2005 confirms that the Academic Council and Syndicate have revised the rules which will be effective for admission to M.Phil/Ph.D., programmes for academic session 2005-2006.
Petitioner applied and got admission in the academic session for the year 2002-2003. The said amendment as per its own cut off date does not apply to the case of the petitioner.
10. The judgments relied upon by the respondent/ University are not attracted in the present case as the University itself had applied Old Rules to Ph.D. Students in the disciplines. The cut off date is the academic session 2005-2006 which is after the academic session of the petitioner. The petitioner has also been discriminated thereby violating Article 25 of the Constitution. The submission of ladies has no merit as the petitioner had filed a request/appeal before the Vice- Chancellor which was finally decided by the Board on 20-1-2009.
11. The question of the petitioner having a vested right to the rules or contents of the prospectus is not relevant for the purposes of this case. In the present case the petitioner has been clearly discriminated.
12. For the above reasons this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20-1-2009 is set aside. Respondents are directed to apply the Old Rules applicable to the M.Phil/Ph.D programme to the case of the petitioner as has been done in the case of respondents Nos.6 and 8.
13. This petition is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.