' SHAUKAT UMAR PIRZADA, J:---Through this writ petition the petitioners seek declaration that the act of the respondents restraining A the petitioners to appear in M.Phil. Third semester examination be set aside as being mala fide, illegal and without lawful authority.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners after passing M.Sc. (Botany) examination with excellent marks, were admitted in M.Phil. (Botany) on merit by respondent No,l.
They have passed their two semesters of examination of M.Phil., but they have been informed by the respondents that as they had not passed Graduation Assessment Test (GAT)-(General) at the time of their admission in M.Phil., therefore, they would not be allowed to take part in the forthcoming semesters. As the petitioners were disallowed by the respondents to continue with their studies, therefore, they have challenged this act of the respondents through the instant writ petition which' has been resisted by the respondents through their parawise comments in which they have stated that the proclamation published in the newspaper and annexed with the parawise comments as Annexure-R/1 clearly states that the GAT (General) test was the prerequisite for the B admission in M.Phil. And the petitioners were given time to acquire this qualification, but they failed to do so, hence, they are not eligible to continue the M.Phil. Studies.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have qualified the GAT (General) test but the respondents have objected that the said qualification has not been acquired by the petitioners within ' the time given to them for the purpose. He further contends that the petitioners have passed their two semesters with remarkable positions and that denying them right to continue with their studies, is not only unjust and illegal but also amounts to ruining their career. Learned counsel for the respondents has controverted the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners and has stated that since the petitioners have failed to 'obtain the said qualification within the given timeframe therefore, they have been rightly restrained from participating/appearing in the forthcoming semesters.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record. The proclamation inviting applications for admission is containing the qualifications of the candidates required for admission in M.Phil. And the conditions regulating the said admissions. As qualifications of the candidates and conditions attached thereto have direct nexus to the instant controversy between the parties, therefore, the relevant portion thereof is reproduced hereunder for the facility of reference:-- "(1) B.S. 4 years with minimum CGPA 2.5 in the subjects of Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, Botany and Zaology for ,admission into MS Program.
(2) At least 50% marks in M.A./M.Sc. Examination (annual system) or CGPA 2.5 under semester system in the concerned disciple for admission into M.Phil.
(3) GAT (General) test required by the HEC and conducted by National Testing Service (NTS) is to be qualified by all candidates for admission into LL.M./MS/M.Phil. All information regarding this test can be had from the NTS Website www .Nts .Org .Pk.
(4) The required number of seats, in each discipline will be first filled by the candidates who have already qualified GAT (General) test using the criteria mentioned in the Prospectus. These admissions will be considered as regular admission.
(5) If some seats remain unfilled in (4) above, these will be filled by all applicants who have not yet qualified GAT (General) test using the criteria based on their academic qualifications. These admissions will be provisional and the candidate has to qualify GAT (General) test within the duration of first Semester otherwise his admission will be cancelled."
5. Condition (5) above is most relevant for the instant controversy which clearly states that the applicants/candidates, who have not yet qualified GAT (General) test, would be provisionally granted admission against the seats not filled in terms of condition (4) above. However, these admissions would be provisional and the candidates have to qualify GAT (General) test within the duration of first semester failing which his admission would be cancelled. The petitioners and many other candidates could not qualify the said test within the prescribed period, but the respondents did not take any action against them which means that for D all practical purposes the respondents either waived of that condition or compromised on the closing date for acquiring that qualification. This fact is evident from the minutes of the meeting of the Admission Committee and prospectus committee held on 2-6-2010 the item No,1 of which reads as follows:-- "Item No,1: To consider the case received from the Chairman, Department of Pharmacy regarding permission to continue Research Work of Ms. Nuzhat Talib and Erum Nazar.
' Miss Nuzhat Talib and Miss Erum Nazar students of M.Phil Pharmaceutics session 2008-2010 have applied to accept their pas result of GAT dated 15-1-2010 on the strength of order passed by Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, in Writ Petition No,1/2010 dated 6-4-2010 filed by Mr. Mulazim Hussain and Miss Rabia Azam student of M.Phil. Islamic Studies. High Court has allowed the said students one more chances to clear their GAT examination after the date of order.
' Present applicants have already cleared their GAT examination held on 10-1-2010, therefore, they cannot be refused the relief already granted by High Court to students of Islamic Studies, falling in the identical set of circumstances."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners have also qualified the GAT (General) test, but the respondents are not entertaining the same on the ground that they have failed to qualify the same within the prescribed period which is discriminatory.
7. Learned counsel the respondents has not controverted this contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been given discriminatory treatment as against various other candidates who have qualified the said test beyond the period prescribed by the respondents, but they have been allowed to continue their studies while the petitioners have been denied this relief, not without substance.
8. However, learned counsel for the respondents have stated that respondents hale not relaxed condition No,5 rather this has been done on the orders of the Court passed in Writ Petition. No,1 of 2010 and Writ Petition No,2005 of 2010. The record of the case reveals that the petitioners of those writ petitions had not passed their GAT examination till that date but, were allowed one more opportunity to pass the said examination and this order was passed with the consent of the respondent/University, while in, the instant case the petitioners claim that they have passed their GAT (General) test, which fact has not been denied by the counsel for the respondents but even then they have been restrained to continue their studies. This conduct of the respondents is against the rule of consistency as also discriminatory qua the petitioners. The petitioners after completing their first semester were never served any notice by the respondents in terms of condition (5) which leads to the conclusion that the respondents had either waived of or relaxed the said condition. Suddenly restraining the petitioners from their studies is too harsh and amounts to ruining their future career. As pointed out above, the petitioners have qualified the requirement of GAT (General) test therefore, they also deserve the same treatment which the respondents have been given to many other students.
9. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition is allowed and the petitioners, who have qualified the GAT (General) test, are entitled to continue their studies without interruption and the respondents act to restrain the petitioners from studying and appearing in the next semester is declared illegal unlawful, discriminatory, against the rule of consistency and of no effect.