TARIQ JAVAID, J.---This writ petition is directed against failure to entertain petitioner's application for admission into B.Sc . Degree course conducted by the respondent. The petitioner A having B- Tech Pass degree applied for admission into B.Sc. Engineering 3rd semester (2nd year) course which was not entertained by the respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the past since 1994 till 2008 the respondent Institute had two reserved seats for candidates having B. Tech.
Pass degree, in B.Sc. Engineering 3rd Semester (2nd year) and candidates having B-Tech honour were entitled to join the B.Sc. Engineering 5th Semester (3rd year) Course being conducted by the respondent. The petitioner having qualified B-Tech Pass approached the respondent for admission in 3rd semester (2nd year) and was informed that since 2009 admission into 3rd semester (2nd year) was not possible as the criteria had been enhanced by the Pakistan Engineering Council and the candidates having B-Tech Pass were no longer entitled to exemption from the First two semesters and similarly, the candidates having B-Tech Honours were no longer entitled to exemption from the first two years and no longer allowed to join 5th semester (3rd year) of the degree course. As such his application was not entertained.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner joined the B-Tech Pass Course with a view that under the existing policy he would be entitled to join BSc. Engineering Course being conducted by the respondent and the change of the policy on the part of the respondent has deprived him of his vested right to join the course in the 3rd semester (2nd year). It is further contended that candidates having intermediate qualification who have spent 12 years in education have been equated with petitioner who had acquired 14 years qualification and the petitioner being better qualified was entitled to the admission in the 3rd semester (2nd year) as compared to the other candidates, as such the petitioner has been discriminated and his vested right to join B. Sc. Engineering has been illegally taken away by the respondent. He prayed for issuance of writ against the respondent with direction to allow him to join the 2nd year of course of studies. In support of his contentions the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court passed in Ameer Hamza v. Chairman Railways Board (1999 M LD 2346).
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that degrees conferred by the respondent are accredited by the Pakistan Engineering Council. He admitted that in the past B-Tech Pass and B-Tech Honours students were given exemption from 1st and 2nd year annual examinations respectively. However, the Pakistan Engineering Council, who has accredited the degree being conferred by the respondent, has changed the criteria. It is also contended that the respondent Institute has switched over from annual examination system to semester system and under the new scheme the exemptions which were being allowed in the past were discontinued.
Under the new arrangement it was no longer possible C for the respondent to admit the petitioner in the 2nd year by granting exemption from the 1st two semesters. It is further argued that there was no vested right as there were only two seats reserved for B-Tech Pass candidates and other two seats reserved for B-Tech. Honours candidates, allotted/ allocated on the basis of merit of the candidates calculated on the basis of their qualification and marks/grades obtained by them.
Therefore, in these circumstances, it is contended that there was no vested right of any candidate as only those candidates who had merit were admitted. Since the said criteria is no longer in vogue no applications were entertained and as such no merit list was prepared for B-Tech Pass and B- Tech Honours candidates. However, the petitioner is entitled to admission in the first year again depending on open merit.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show how vested right had accrued in his favour and how the same is being denied to him. The criteria for admission was open merit. The two seats reserved for B-Tech Pass and B-Tech. Honours were also awarded on the basis of merit list. If more than two candidates applied obviously those two who secured better position were to be admitted therefore, it cannot be said that there was vested right of any student to get admission and claim exemption. Similarly, it is difficult to comprehend that why educational institution cannot enhance entry test requirement. It is appropriate for the governing body to allow certain class of students and not to admit or grant exemptions to any other category/class of students, who may very well have spent more time in acquiring education. It is quality of education which merited for admission into a degree course and not length of a period spent therefor. The students having passed intermediate examination with better grades are normally given precedence over graduates having lesser grades, although the graduates cannot be equated with intermediate students as they have acquired higher qualification, yet it may be deemed appropriate by governing body to give preference to intermediate students having better grades/marks in their intermediate examination. As such, it cannot be said that the petitioner having passed Diploma and B-Tech Pass degree should be given precedence over the fresh candidates having passed intermediate examination with higher grades. It is the natural capability, the potential and capacity to put in hard work and achieve higher grades which brings the students on higher pedestal rather than the length of period spent for a qualification. A student achieving 90% marks in intermediate examination cannot be said to be inferior to a student who achieves 60% marks in intermediate and again 60% in the B.A. Degree course, for it is his potential to achieve 90% marks which brings him on the merit. In any event, the petitioner has not assailed the policy of Pakistan Engineering Council nor the Engineering Counsel was arrayed as respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the case of Ameer Hamza (Supra); in this case the petitioner assailed the facility of free travel passes after his retirement from the Railways. It was maintained that by virtue of long standing practice a vested right accrued to the petitioner and the Railways had no authority to withdraw the facility enjoyed by him. The reliance was also placed on the rules which provided for the grant of free travel to the employees after their retirement from Railways. After examining the case the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that "It is a settled principle of law that any right created in favour of a citizen cannot be taken away by a notification through an administrative order even by a competent authority. This is only a prerogative of the legislator to take away the rights of the citizens retrospectively by law."
To my mind the said judgment is of little help to the learned counsel for the petitioner because it was also held therein that it is a settled principle of law that the employer has a right to change the terms and conditions at any time and that the petitioner had no right to be treated by the same terms and conditions which were offered to him at the time of appointment. Therefore, the ratio descendi of the said case also shows that the respondent can enhance the entry requirements for admission to B.Sc. Degree course. Similarly, the respondent is well within his rights to refuse exemption under the new scheme of studies, course requirements and syllabus.
6. The doctrine of vested right was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the well celebrated judgment passed in Al-Samrez Enterprise v. The Federation of Pakistan (1986 SCM R 1917). Their lordships while dealing with the question of retrospective withdrawal of exemption granting notification observed, "we are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that if a binding contract was concluded between the appellants and the foreign exporters or steps were taken by the appellant creating a vested right to the then existing notification granting exemption, the same could not be taken away and destroyed in modification of the earlier one, on the ground that under section 21 of the General Clauses Act, the Government could exercise the power of modification.
The question before us is not whether the second notification was ultra vires of the powers of the Government but whether the second notification would be applicable to the case of the appellants resulting in taking away the exemption already granted. Their Lordships further held, "Therefore, the exemption notification is basically addressed to public at large or in any case to prospective importers. It will be inequitable and unjust to deprive a person who acts upon such assurance of the right to exemption and expose him to unforeseen loss in the business transaction by suddenly withdrawing the exemption after he has made legal commitment. It is in this perspective that a right is created in his favour and a subsequent withdrawal of exemption cannot be given retrospective operation by an executive act to destroy this right." Since 1986 this judgment has been followed in numerous cases.
7. But the case of the petitioner is distinguishable in as much as that firstly there was no statutory grant of exemption from the first two semesters; secondly, the whole scheme of examination systems has been switched over to a semester system, the course requirements appear to have been enhanced for better quality education, thirdly, there is no retrospectively alleged with regard to the students already admitted to follow a course of studies. The petitioner was neither admitted nor his application for admission was entertained. It has not been shown that any representation or assurance, in any sense of the word, was given to the petitioner to the effect that on passing B- Tech Pass course he would be admitted in B.Sc. Engineering by the respondents. The past practice to grant exemption was neither statutory nor it could operate as estopple, as enhancement of course require- D ments and qualification for admission, being prerogative of the institution are to be decided by the respective institutions and there governing bodies.
8. The respondent has maintained that he is obliged to follow instructions of Pakistan Engineering Council as it is the Pakistan Engineering Council which has granted accreditation to the degree awarded by the respondent and if course of studies is not carried out according to the criteria laid down by the Pakistan Engineering Council then the degree conferred by the respondent will not be recognized. It appears that it is imperative for the respondent to follow instructions of the Pakistan Engineering Council which Has vide letter dated 21-5-2009 informed the respondent to discontinue the practice of granting exemption to the candidates having B-Tech Pass and B-Tech Honours course.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has never sought instructions from the Pakistan Engineering Council in the past is of no avail in as much as that the respondent has shifted from annual examination system to semester system. The degree is accredited by the Pakistan Engineering Council, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent cannot seek instructions or clarification from the Pakistan Engineering Council, who is clothed with the power, to recognize the degree awarded by the respondent-Institute.
10. In Muhammad Siddique v. University of Sindh (PLD 1996 SC 182), it was held that Pakistan Engineering Council has exclusive domain to decide whether a particular qualification could be equated with another academic qualification. If Pakistan Engineering Council has decided not to equate petitioners qualification with F the first two semesters of the degree, to my mind, it does not infringe any vested right of the petitioner.
11. Under the new scheme it appears that Pakistan Engineering Council has instructed the respondent to admit better quality students, capable to achieve higher grades. Ordinarily the Diploma courses are not considered equal to the degrees conferred by the recognized Institutions for the entry requirements, the syllabus and quality of instructions in degree courses are almost invariably better than the Diploma courses. This is the reason that the petitioner opted for the Diploma Course otherwise, it was open for him to join the respondent Institute after having passed his intermediate examination. The very fact that the petitioner did not join the respondent institute at that point in time shows that he could not attain the merit required for admission and hence opted for Diploma course. In such like situation it cannot be said that the petitioner had a vested right to the grant of exemption from the first two semesters.
12. The petitioner has not been able to persuade that any of his vested rights has been infringed.
The petition is dismissed in limine.