' IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.-Through this single judgment, I propose to dispose of Writ Petition No, 567 of 2008, Writ Petition No,954 of 2009 and 1877 of 2009, as identical questions of law are involved in all three matters,
2. The petitioners sought admission with different institutes of COMSATS in order to complete different programs offered through the said institutes. This included MBA program, B.Sc.
Telecommunication Engineering program and the Computer Science program. According to the admission criteria all admissions were to be regulated on the basis of merit determined by combining the weighted marks obtained in the entrance test with the weighted marks earned in the previous public examinations.' The weightage criteria for the Masters and Bachelors degree programs was as follows:-- "Degree Programs. Weightage Percentage For Bachelor Degree.
Matric Equivalent. 10% Intermediate or equivalent.40% NTS Test. 50% For Master Degree.
Matric or equivalent. 10% Intermediate or equivalent.15% Bachelor or equivalent. 30% NTS Test. 45%"
' There is no dispute between the parties that the petitioners qualified the entrance test and met some of the other requirements for admission. It is also common ground between the parties that the petitioners had taken the examination of the qualifying degree required for admission to the respective programs of COMSATS but had not received their results. The prospectus of COMSATS catered for situations where candidates who had taken the examination of the qualifying degree but had not received their results, to be granted provisional admission. Relevant part of the Prospectus relating to provisional admission provided as follows:-- "Provisional Admissions.
' Candidates may apply for provisional admission if they have already taken the examination of the qualifying degree but have yet to receive their result. These applicants must submit a Hope Certificate/Affidavit along with duly filled Admission Form. However, applicants who are provisionally admitted must ensure that their results are received in the campus office within four weeks of the commencement of the semester otherwise their admission will be cancelled."
' The petitioners who met all other requirements for admission were granted provisional admission subject to submission of a Hope Certificate/Affidavit. Through the said Certificate/Affidavit the petitioners were required to state that they hoped to score at least 50% marks in their qualifying degree examination. They were granted admission to the respective institutes, deposited the requisite fee demanded by the respondents from time to time, attended classes and fulfilled the course requirements towards award of final degrees in the respective disciplines that they were studying in.
3. It appears that in order to qualify for admission, the petitioners were required to score at least 50% marks in their bachelors examinations. Further, provisionally admitted applicants were required to ensure that their results were received by the concerned offices of the respondents within four weeks of commencement of the semester. It was specifically mentioned that in case such results were not received, admission of the provisionally admitted candidates will be cancelled. There is divergence of claims made by the petitioners and the respondents regarding the time, when the petitioners submitted their results with the respondents. While the petitioners claimed that the results were submitted within time, the respondents claimed that such results were submitted after considerable delay. In the meantime, the petitioners continued to attend classes, completed the course work and met the academic and course work requirements for award of final degrees.
4. In the case of Usama Javed, the petitioner in Writ Petition No, 567 of 2008, he was informed vide letter, dated 10-8-2007 that the eligibility requirement for MBA program is minimum 50% marks in graduation. Since he had secured less than 50% (49.12%) as per copy of degree provided by him, his admission stood cancelled with immediate effect. He was also informed that all transcripts, certificates and result cards issued to him in the past stood cancelled and all semester dues and fee deposited by him stood frozen. However, he was given the option to apply for refund of caution money. It may be noted that the aforesaid letter was issued to Usama Javed at a time when he had already passed the final examination fulfilling all requirements for the MBA program and was waiting for his degree.
5. In case of the petitioners in Writ Petition No,954 of 2009, they had been admitted in the discipline of telecommunication engineering. At the time that the impugned letters were issued to them, they had already put in four years of course work, had qualified various semesters and were in the last stages, of their academic careers before receiving their degrees. They received intimation regarding cancellation of their admission vide letter, dated 16-9-2008, informing that their admission has been cancelled on the basis of obtaining less than 50% marks in the last degree/certificate. The petitioner in Writ Petition No,1877 of 2009 Mr. Muhammad Nauman Javed had, at the time of filing the writ petition, successfully, cleared six semesters in the department of computer sciences and intimation regarding cancellation of his admission was sent to him on 16- 9-2008 in-the same format as above.
6. The common question involved in all these petitions is whether the respondents were justified in cancelling admissions of the petitioners with retrospective effect considering that the petitioners had already completed most of the course work successfully and at least in the case of the petitioners in Writ Petition No, 1877 of 2009, had already qualified for the award of a degree, had paid all requisite fees for attending semesters, which had been received by the respondents and had fulfilled all other conditions required to be met in order to be entitled to the award of final degrees/certificates.
7, The answer to the aforesaid questions turns on the interpretation of the clause of prospectus relating to the provisional admission, which has been reproduced above for the purpose of facility of reference. It is noticed that the relevant clause provided that in case the results were not received in the campus office within four weeks of commencement of semester their admission will be cancelled. Admittedly, the petitioners remained enrolled with the respective institutes from 2 to 4 years, attended classes, completed the course work, and fulfilled all or most of the requirements for award of a degrees without any objection or question being raised by the respondents at any stage.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the admission in MBA/MBE is not based on marks obtained in the bachelors examination only. The merit list was prepared on the basis of combining weighted marks obtained in the entrance test with the weighted marks earned in the nrevious public examination and marks scored in the entrance test conducted by National Testing System (NTS). He, therefore, submits that the admission of the petitioner could not be cancelled due to failure to score 50% marks in the bachelors examination. He further argues that the petitioners cleared all semesters, during the course of their studies, paid all dues/fee, which were in substantial amounts and expended considerable time and effort attending classes doing the course work and clearing the examination. According to him, it is neither just nor proper at this stage to cancel the admission of the petitioners ab initio. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the provisional admission of the petitioners stood regularized by efflux of time and by the fact that the petitioners had fulfilled all requirements to qualify for MBA program.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents has made an effort to defend the impugned cancellation of admission on the ground that the petitioners were granted provisional admission subject to the condition that they will obtain minimum 50% marks in their bachelors degree. In view of the fact that the petitioners has failed to fulfill the said requirement, they were not entitled to claim a degree as a matter of right despite having fulfilled the course requirements for award of the said degree.
10. The petitioners were encouraged by the respondent to apply for provisional admission, if they had already taken the examination of the qualifying degree but had not received their results. They were required to submit hope certificates/affidavits along with duly filled admission forms. It was stated that the applicants who were provisionally admitted must ensure that their results were received in the Campus Office within four weeks of the commencement of the semesters, otherwise, their admission were liable to be cancelled. The period of four weeks after commencement of the semester appears to have been consciously fixed in order to ensure that the candidates who had provisionally been admitted and did not meet the eligibility criteria, could be asked to leave at the very initial stages of the program. So that time, effort and money was not wasted and the candidates who did not meet the minimum requirements could explore other career options with other institutions. Had this been done, the petitioners would not have any cause for complaint, because, they would have received refund of their fee, would not have invested their time, efforts and energy in studying for a program for a number of years and would have opted for other programs and career paths/options available in other institutions. Therefore, there was a basis and reason to put the four weeks limit.
11. The respondents had to exercise this option within four weeks or at least within a reasonable time. To allow the respondents to exercise this option two years down the line with retrospective effect, is neither just not fair. The petitioners have attended classes for two to four years, have completed their course work successfully qualifying a number of semesters, have paid all dues and fees, which have been received by the respondents without cavil and demur. Further, the petitioners have invested two to four years of their young lives in pursuit of their educational careers with the respondents. This Court is not prepared to put the clock back and deprive the petitioners of previous years of their educational careers, While the petitioners may have been negligent in submitting their results, the respondents have been equally indolent in taking appropriate action, if the results were not received within four weeks of commencement of the semester.
12. It is to be noticed that it is not the case of the respondents nor has any attempt been made to argue that the petitioners have played fraud or that on account of any act or omission on the part of the petitioners, the right of any other candidate who qualified for admission had been affected.
The sole ground on which the admission of the petitioners is sought to be cancelled is that they did not meet the requirement of obtaining 50% marks in their bachelors examinations. As discussed above, the said threshold stood crossed, when the respondents failed to cancel their admission within four weeks or a reasonable time after commencement of the semester.
13. Questions of similar nature have arisen before the superior Courts of our country including the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the past. The superior Courts have consistently discouraged actions which result in admission of students being cancelled who have already studied in an institution for some time and have also qualified some of the examinations towards award of final degree. Reliance in this regard may be placed on Hamza Khan v. Province of Balochistan through Secretary, Department of Education, Civil Secretariat, Quetta and others (1995 SCM R 711). The aforesaid judgment was followed in Riaz ul Haq v. Selection Committee Constituted for Admission to Bolan Medical College through Secretary and 6 others (1997 SCM R 1845), where it was observed as follows:-- "Provisional admission was given to the appellant by Supreme Court; he had completed four years of his medical career and was in final year of M.B.B.S.---Appellant, thus, could not be deprived of his bright medical career at present stage."
' In Mst. Asma Nadeem v. International Islamic University and others (2002 M LD 290), it was held that where a candidate had qualified her examination and result notification had been issued in her favour declaring her to be successful, respondent University was directed to award the degree to the petitioner. In Mehvish Shabbier v. Chief Executive Nishter Medical College, Multan and 3 others (2008 YLR 57), in similar circumstances it was held that where the fault lay with the Admission Committee/Authority, who had to be careful and cautious at the time of admitting the petitioner with regard to her qualification--- After the admission had been granted to the petitioner, who had passed her first year examination, it would be depriving the petitioner in the middle of her course of study of her right to complete two years program, which she had a right to do. It was further held that the doctrine of locus poenitentiae could not be used to deprive the petitioner of her right as the same would produce unjust and unfair results. Reference in this may also be made to Chairman, Selection Committee/Principal King Edward Medical College, Lahore and 2 others v. Wasif Zamir Ahmad (1997 SCM R 15), Director-General Ordnance Services, General Headquarters, Rawalpindi v. Muhammad Abdul Latif (2003 SCM R 410) and Bashir Ahmad Solangi v.
Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh Karachi and 2 others (2004 SCM R 1864).
14. The petitioners were admitted by the respondents in various disciplines for which they had filed applications. They deposited the fee/charges demanded by the respondents, attended classes for considerable period of time and some of them had already qualified for the degree that they had studied for. Admittedly, their provisional admission was not cancelled within reasonable time by the respondents. In case the respondents are allowed to cancel their admissions retrospectively, such action will be unjust, unfair and unreasonable and would gravely prejudice the petitioners by way of destroying their educational careers, Further, failure to exercise the option of cancellation within a reasonable time, constituted negligence on the part of the respondent for which the petitioners cannot be penalized. Some of the petitioners have already completed the course work and passed the final examination. As such they have already qualified to receive a degree. Delivery of a diploma is just a formality. As others are concerned, who have covered substantial portion of their course work and have studied for their degree for year, cancellation of their admission at this stage would be unjust and detrimental to their educational career without much fault on their part.
Having knowingly and consciously allowed the petitioners to attend courses, take examination, receive results for years, the respondents are even otherwise estopped from taking a position which may be detrimental to the interests of the petitioners,
15. Relying on the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, I am inclined to allow these petitions. The respondents are directed to issue degree to those of the petitioners who have successfully completed their course works and academic requirements for said degrees. As far as those of the petitioners, who are still enrolled and have not completed their respective course work, they will be treated as regular students and shall be awarded degrees once they complete the course works and pass/qualify the requisite examination (if any). The in the above terms.