' IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.---Through this constitutional petition the petitioner challenges notification dated 30-3-2011 regarding cancellation/ withdrawal of an earlier notification dated 22-3-2011 relating to issuance of a Ph.D. Degree in the subject of Paleontology (Zoology) to the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents invited applications through advertisement in the Press from eligible candidates for admission to the Ph.D Programme in the subject of Paleontology (Zoology). The petitioner applied for admission and was selected for the Ph.D.
Programme on 27-9-2005. The petitioner completed the requisite course requirements and passed the comprehensive examination system 2005-2006. The topic of the thesis of the petitioner was also approved vide letter dated 16-2-2009. The petitioner thereafter submitted his thesis on the topic of "Taxonomic studies of fossil even and odd-toed mammals from the Miocene Rocks of Dhok Bun Ameer Khatoon, District Chakwal, Punjab, Pakistan". An evaluation report of the thesis was sought. It was cleared with the remarks that there was no plagiarism in the thesis and the same was forwarded to the External Examiner.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the thesis was finally approved for the grant of a Ph.D. Degree. As per requirements, the matter was referred to the Advanced Study and Research Board, which referred the case of the petitioner to the Chairman, Department of Zoology for holding viva voce towards awarding a Ph.D. Degree to the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have qualified the viva voce, whereafter he was directed to deposit the requisite fee. It was accordingly done. At this stage the Chairperson of the Doctoral Programme Coordination Committee (DPCC), Dean, ' Faculty of Life Sciences, University of the Punjab, vide letter dated 17-3-2011 made an observation that the petitioner needs to qualify the GRE (International) Examination which was a requirement of the Higher Education Commission for award of a Ph.D. Degree. The petitioner filed a representation against the said deservation on the ground that at least one other batch fellow of the petitioner had been granted a Ph.D. Degree without clearing the GRE (International) Examination and he was entitled to similar treatment. The petitioner claims that his representation was accepted and the respondents recommended the petitioner for award of a Ph.D. Degree vide letter dated 22-3-2011.
In consequence, notification No,Ph.D.(R)/20/2011, dated 22-3-2011 was issued according to which the petitioner was granted a Ph.D. Degree in the Subject of Paleontology (Zoology). However, eight days later, vide another notification No,Ph.D(R)/23/2011, the earlier notification was cancelled/withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfil the prerequisites for award of a Ph.D. Degree, insofar as, he had not qualified the. GRE (International) Examination. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the relevant time there was no requirement to qualify the said test. He further argues that the petitioner has been discriminated against, insofar as, Dr.Abdul Majid Khan, who was a batch mate of the petitioner and had also not qualified the GRE (International) Examination has been granted a Ph.D. Degree which is still intact and has not been cancelled. The learned counsel finally argues that even if the relevant rules now require passing of GRE Examination, such rules were not in existence at the time that the petitioner took admission to the Ph.D. Programme and any rules that may have subsequently been introduced, cannot be given retrospective effect.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the advertisement inviting applications for admission to the Ph.D. Programme was published on 29-7-2005 and the petitioner was granted admission on 27-9-2005. At the relevant time the requirements notified by the Higher Education Commission in order to maintain minimum quality criteria for. M.Phil/Ph.D.
Studies included a condition that a candidate must pass subject GRE (International) Test. He therefore submits that before the petitioner could be awarded a Ph.D. Degree, he was required to meet the requirements set by the Higher Education Commission. The learned counsel has also drawn my attention to a letter dated 30-5-2006 issued by the Higher Education Commission in which it has clearly and categorically stated that the students who had been admitted directly to Ph.D. Programme after 1-5-2005 must clear the GRE (Subject) Test before submission of Ph.D.
Thesis. He further argues that the petitioner was all along aware that he could not be conferred a Ph.D. Degree unless he cleared GRE (Subject) Examination as it was common knowledge amongst all Ph.D. Scholars in view of various communications and letters issued by the Chairman DPCC and Higher Education Commission. He submits that the notification dated 22-3-2011 was issued on account of an oversight and the same was rightly withdrawn when the oversight was discovered about a week later. As far the question of discrimination is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that on discovery of the relevant facts, proceedings are being initiated against Dr.Abdul Majid Khan, who was awarded a Ph.D. Degree without fulfilling the requirement of GRE (Subject) Test. He finally argues that a student does not enjoy a vested right to be treated in accordance with the rules applicable at the time that he sought admission for a degree in an institution. He submits that the educational institutions/universities are at liberty to change the rules and a candidate is governed by such rules as are applicable at the time that he completes the degree.
5. Although the writ petition has yet to be admitted to regular hearing, as both the parties are represented and lengthy arguments have been addressed, this petition is treated as a pacca case and is being disposed of as such.
6. It appears that an advertisement was published in the daily newspapers on behalf of the Chairman Doctoral Programme Coordination Committee (DPCC) University of the Punjab, inviting applications from candidates for admission in the M.Phil/Ph.D. Degree Programmes in various disciplines. The petitioner was granted admission to the said Programme. He chose to write his thesis on the topic of "Taxonomic studies of fossil even and odd- toed mammals from the Miocene Rocks of Dhok Bun Ameer Khatoon, District Chakwal, Punjab, Pakistan", for his Ph.D. Research on the subject of Zoology. The petitioner completed the course requirements and submitted his thesis.
After receipt of evaluation report for plagiarism, the petitioner was informed that there would be a public defence of his dissertation in which a Committee was constituted. The said Committee recommended the petitioner for award of Ph.D. Degree. Subsequently, vide letter dated 17-3-2011, the Chairperson of the DPCC observed that in the petitioner's case, there was the deficiency of GRE (Subject) Test which was required to be cleared before the Ph.D. Degree could be awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner moved a representation through the Chairman of his Department requesting that he may be awarded a Ph.D. Degree without fulfilling the requirement of passing GRE (Subject) Test. It appears that vide notification dated 22-3-2011, the award of Ph.D. Degree was notified by the University of the Punjab on the mistaken assumption that the petitioner fulfilled all requirements for award of a Ph.D. Degree. However, the said notification was subsequently withdrawn on the ground of the aforesaid deficiency of non-clearance of GRE (Subject) Test and the petitioner was called upon to clear the test.
7. It appears that even before the aforesaid advertisement was, published, the Registrar of the University of Punjab had circulated a document titled Higher Education Commission, Minimum Quality Criteria with Diagrammatic Flow Chart for M.Phil/Ph.D. Level Studies in Pakistani Universities/Degree Awarding Institutions amongst all the Deans of the Faculties of the Universities of the Punjab. The said criteria clearly and categorically laid down that candidates for M.Phil/Ph.D.
Studies must clear GRE (International) Test. Subsequently, vide letter dated 30-5-2006, the Higher Education Commission had also notified the Vice Chancellor of the University of the Punjab that students who have been admitted directly to Ph.D. After 31-5-2005 must clear the GRE (Subject)
Test. On 27-2-2007, the Chairperson of DPCC circulated an advertisement published in the Daily "Nation" on 28-1-2007 informing all concerned that according to the Higher Education Commission GRE (General) Test for MS/M.Phil and Subject GRE (International) Test for Ph.D. Were mandatory for students admitted after June, 2005.
8. It also appears from the record that such information was widely circulated and was available with all concerned. I am, therefore, not impressed with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no requirement for a GRE (Subject) Test at the time that the advertisement was published or at the time that the petitioner was admitted to the Ph.D.
Programme. Even otherwise, it is common ground between the parties that at the time that the notification in favour of the petitioner was issued, there existed a requirement set by the Higher Education S Commission for qualifying the GRE (International) Text before a Pb.D. Degree could be awarded. It is settled law that students have no vested right that they must be treated in accordance with the requirements which were prevalent at the time of their embarking upon studies of their respective courses. It has been held that the student has to fulfil the requirements prevalent at the time that he completes his degree. Reference in this regard may usefully be made to Miss Sultana Khokhar and 2 others, v. The University of the Punjab (PLD 1962 SC 35) and judgnients of this Court rendered in Amina Amjad and others v. University of the Punjab (I.C.A. 182 of 2009) and Rabia Moazam and 12 others v. University of the Punjab and others (Writ Petition No,14929 of 2008).
9. As far as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding discriminatory treatment is concerned, suffice it to say that in their para wise comments the respondents have categorically stated that the case of Dr. Abdul Majid has come to the notice of the University and he will be dealt with strictly in accordance with law and no discrimination of any sort will be allowed in any circumstances. Even otherwise, two wrongs do not make one right and the petitioner cannot be granted relief solely on the ground that another person who is allegedly in a similar position has erroneously been granted a Ph.D. Degree and that the petitioner is also entitled to the same treatment.
10. The question regarding retrospective application of the rules has also lost its significance in view of the fact that the requirement of passing the GRE (Subject) Test was admittedly in existence at the time that the petitioner was enrolled in the Ph.D. Programme and also in view of the aforesaid Judgments wherein it has been held that a student has no vested right to be treated in accordance with the rules prevalent at the time of his admission and that he would have to meet the requirements prevalent at the time that he qualifies. In order to emphasize the point, I would like to borrow the words of his lordship Hamoodur Rahman, J, in his judgment in the case of Sultana Khokhar (supra) wherein his lordship observed as follows:-- "Before parting with this matter we would like to add that in spite of a careful examination of the provisions of the Punjab University Act and the Statues framed thereunder we have not been able to discover therefrom anything which would support the right sought to be asserted in this case. To uphold such a right would amount to placing an impossible burden upon the University, for, then it may well have to conduct different examinations upon different standards in each year in respect of the same degree for different students or groups of students in accordance with the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations prevailing on the dates of their respective admissions, even though the same may have long since been validly altered in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
This could never have been the intention of the framers of the Punjab University Act. We have no hesitation, therefore, in coming to the conclusion that no such vested right exists in the examinees which can be enforced by a writ of mandamus."
' For reasons recorded above, I hold that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in exercise of extra-ordinary Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, this petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed.