1. ' SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, J.---This Constitutional Petition has been preferred by the petitioner Abdul Saboor seeking following reliefs:-- "(a) Direct the respondent No,1 to grant direct Admission to the petitioner in Ph.D and include his name in the list of 27 admissions as per Policy & Procedure stated by the then Dean Faculty of Law in his Letter dated 1-2-2009 as marked and placed at 'D' and the Director/Supervisor of the Research Work may not be changed.
(b) Direct the respondent No,1 to act in accordance with the law and give direct admission to the eligible candidates holding the degrees as mentioned vide item No,(i) on page 7 of the University's Prospectus.
(c) Declare that the acts of the respondents are tainted with mala fides and are arbitrary acts beyond the scope of their authority and are ultra vires to the rules/bye laws/prospectus.
(d) Declare that the respondents are bound to work within the parameters of the bye-laws rules/prospectus and being statutory body they cannot interpret the rules bye laws/prospectus at their own.
(e) Direct the respondents not to exceed their jurisdiction in future as their steps directly affect the careers/future of the applicants and they should be restrained from self-interpreting the rules and amending the rules/bye laws/prospectus as their acts directly hits the fundamental rights of the petitioner in particular and the other applicants in general.
(f) Direct the respondent No,1 to declare null and void the procedure adopted by them for Ph.D in Law not to implement the results of the unprecedented entry test.
(g) Any other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances to meet the ends of the natural justice."
2. Briefly facts of the case are that the petitioner earned the degree of LL.M from the S.M.
2. Government Law College and after acquiring the said degree he made up his mind to enhance his further qualification up to Doctorate Degree. On 26-1-2008 had applied for admission in Ph.D on a prescribed Admission and on fulfilment of all requirements the Admission Form was approved and forwarded by the then Dean of the Law Faculty to the Board of Advance Studies and Research on 29-1-2009. The Board of Advance Studies and Research refused orally to receive the said duly completed Admission Form. The petitioner wrote an application to the Dean Faculty of Law to bring the matter in his notice who not only directed the Board of Advance Studies and Research to accept and process the Admission Form of the petitioner but also called comments from the Board of Advance Studies and Research. The respondent No,1 in place of forwarding their comments to the Dean and during pending of petitioner's admission, announced admission in Ph.D and float an advertisement in the print media reflecting the date and criteria of the entry test for the said study programme. The respondent No,1 handed over a prospectus of the University of Karachi, which shows requirements/procedure for admission to Ph.D., MS. M.Phil., M.Pharm., LL.M or equivalents are eligible for direct admission in Ph.D and the petitioner is exempted from appearing in the written test and he is entitled for his application to be processed.
3. ' Counter-affidavits/comments have been filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2, wherein it is stated that petition is not maintainable in law as the petitioner has no locus standi to file the above petition as Vice-Chancellor or Officer of the University cannot be sued under section 3(3) of the University Act.
4. It is stated that the candidates shown in the admission list were all admitted up to the year 2007 according to prevailing policy and procedure till then, while in the case of petitioner he himself has submitted in para.4 of the petition that he applied for the admission on 26-1-2008 therefore he cannot claim for the same procedure to be adopted in his case. It is also stated that petitioner has misinterpreted the meaning of direct admission to Ph.D. It is also stated that duration of Ph.D.
5. Course is two years and before that student has to pass M.Phil. Examination of two years. The direct admission means that now students can directly apply to Ph.D. Without first undergoing M.Phil.
6. Degree. It is stated that with reference to para. 7(1) the direct admission to Ph.D. Will be given to those candidates already possessing M.S./M. Phil, M. Pharm and LLM or its equivalent is eligible to apply for direct admission to Ph.D. Programme, but it does not mean that the students applying for Ph.D. Are not required to appear in' entrance/aptitude test, interview as recommended by the HEC, which is binding on the University and interpreted by the University Board of Advance Studies and Research Section. It is also stated that University of Karachi has published a criteria for seeking admissions in Ph.D. Programme 2009 and 2010 and the prospectus and all such advertisements clearly shows that there shall be an entrance test and the candidates who have completed their LL.
7. M are not required to do their M.Phil. However those students, are not exempted from appearing in entrance test. The HEC has also given its requirement for Ph.D. On web page and as well as given directions to all Universities of Pakistan through letter dated 25-8-2010 in connection with the admission to Ph.D. And to provide a quality and standardized local test.
8. ' It is further stated that by declaring the LL.M Degree equal to M.Phil. Does not mean that the petitioner is exempted from appearing in entrance test for Ph.D. And further that before official announcement in daily newspaper a meeting comprising of Pro Vice-Chancellor, Dean, Facility of Law and a member made as per law and a committee was made comprising of Dean, Faculty of Law, Justice (Rtd.) M. Haziqul Khairi, Chairman, Justice (Rtd.), M. Mujeebullah Siddiqui, Justice (Rtd.)
9. S. Ali Aslam Jafri and Dr. Shafaat Nabi Khan Sherwani, Members, who after detailed and deliberate discussion resolved that written test of two hours be held and also students have to clear test for seeking admission in Ph.D. Law. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 in their comments to the petition have prayed that petition being misconceived and misconstrued is liable to be dismissed.
10. ' We have heard Mr. Abbadul Husnain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Moin Azher Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondent No,1, and Mr. Rizwan Ali Dodani, learned standing counsel.
11. ' Mr. Abbadul Husnain learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that rules and the bye laws are being superseded at the cost of the prevailing practice and procedure which is against the settled norms of the law. He contended that the respondent No,1 had maintained double standard as procedure now applied to the petitioner was not applied to then appearing applicants as the same rules were also applicable to them and therefore there can be no other conclusion drawn that the petitioner is being treated in a discriminatory manner and his fundamental rights are being violated. He has drawn our attention to page 4 of Prospectus of the University of Karachi, which indicates requirements/procedure for admission to Ph.D., MS., M.Phil., M.Pharm, LL.M. Or equivalents are eligible for direct admission in Ph.D. He has also drawn our attention to Page 7(i) with heading 'Direct Admission to Ph.D' to the candidates possessing M.S./M.Phil., M.Pharm and LL.M.
12. Or its equivalent degree to apply for a direct admission to Ph.D. Programme of the Karachi University, which is a binding effect. He, therefore, prayed that the petitioner is entitled for the direct admission in Ph.D. Programme without passing any entry test.
13. ' Mr. Moin Azhar Siddiqui learned counsel for the respondent No,1 has challenged the maintainability of the petition and argued on the same line as adopted in the comments filed by him on behalf of the respondent No,l. He contended that petitioner has misinterpreted the phrase 'Direct Admissions' as given at para. No,7(i) of the Prospectus published by the University of Karachi, it means that the candidate may apply to Ph.D. Without first undergoing the M.Phil. Degree. He further contended that in order to provide a quality and standardized local test, HEC has approved the name of NTS to take entry test for admission to Ph.D. Through their respective departments He also argued that petitioner appeared in the entry test held on 29-8-2010 for the admission in Ph.D. Programme in which the petitioner stood failed the result of which was announced and published in daily Jang dated 3-9-2010. Learned counsel therefore prayed that the petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
14. ' We have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the available record.
15. Prima facie the respondent No.1 is a statutory body and is performing functions under University of Karachi Act and the Statute and Regulations made thereunder. The main grievance raised by the petitioner through the instant petition is that he is entitled to get direct admission in Ph.D as he possessed the Degree of LL.M., but the respondent No,1 has not given direct admission to the petitioner in Ph.D. The requirements/ procedure for direct admission to Ph.D. The candidates who have other prerequisite degree or equivalent degree such a M.S./M.Phil/M.Pharm and LL. M. Or its equivalent are eligible to apply for direct admission to Ph.D Program which does not mean that students will not fulfil other criteria including test, interview, academic record, general pro forma as recommended by the department. Additionally, the petitioner including 100 candidates appeared in the entry test for the admission in Ph.D. Held on 29-8-2010, out of which only 11 candidates were declared successful and the petitioner was failed. The petitioner after availing the opportunity to appear in the entry test without objecting the test at the relevant time have filed this petition as an afterthought. The Committee comprising of Dean, Faculty of Law, Justice (Rtd.) M. Haziqul Khairi, Chairman, Justice (Rtd.) M.Mujeebullah Siddiqui, Justice (Rtd.) S. Ali Aslam Jafri and Dr. Shafaat Nabi Khan Sherwani, Members, who after detailed and deliberate discussion resolved that a written test of two hours be held and also students have to clear test for seeking admission in Ph.D. Law.
16. The object of passing entry test for obtaining admission in Ph.D. Is made only in order to bring scholars of international repute who are able to complete research and development programs with excellence in academics. The petitioner appeared in the entrance test but stood failed as result of entrance test was announced and published in daily Jang dated 3-9-2010 and the petitioner has filed instant petition on 10-10-2010 after availing the opportunity to appear in the entry test without objecting the test at the relevant time. Therefore, the petition being misconceived and afterthought was dismissed.
17. ' Foregoing are the reasons for our short order dated 8-3-2011, whereby we dismissed this petition.