' ASAD MUNIR, J.---The petitioner along with 35 other students was granted admission in M.Sc.
Biochemistry and Biotechnology for the academic session 2009-2011 at the Institute of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, University of the Punjab, Lahore. The two-year long M.Sc. Degree programme in Biochemistry and Biotechnology is spread over four semesters. During the first two semesters, the courses of both M.Sc. Biochemistry and M.Sc. Biotechnology are common but the courses in the third and fourth semesters for M.Sc. Biochemistry are different from those prescribed for M.Sc.
Biotechnology. After passing the second semester the hitherto common programme becomes specialized and the students are separated to join the class in third semester either for the M.Sc.
Biochemistry degree or that of M.Sc. Biotechnology.
2. The petitioner along with 35 others has passed the second semester of the M.Sc. Biochemistry and Biotechnology course and has given her preference to join the third semester in M.Sc.
Biochemistry instead of M.Sc. Biotechnology but is aggrieved as the respondent-institute is of the view that both M.Sc. Biochemistry class and M.Sc. Biotechnology class must have at least 15 students and that the petitioner on the basis of her performance in the first two semesters i.e, CGPA is not entitled to join the M.Sc. Biochemistry course. According to the respondent-Institute, out of the 36 students 21 have been accommodated in M.Sc. Biochemistry while remaining 15 including the petitioner have been placed in the M.Sc. Biotechnology course on the basis of their merit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner took admission in the course on the faith of representation contained in the Prospectus issued by the Institute in 2009. The relevant part of the prospectus is reproduced below:-- "During the third and fourth semesters, the students pursue studies in various areas specialized for the M.Sc. Biochemistry or M.Sc. Biotechnology degrees. The students pursuing biochemistry degree undertake courses dealing with human physiology and medical biochemistry in the third semester and some advanced courses in the fourth semester. The students opting for biotechnology degree undertake courses in biochemical engineering, microbial, plant, animal and environment biotechnology in the third semester, followed by specialized courses in some currently important areas of biotechnology."
4. According to the learned counsel. For the petitioner the provisions in the prospectus are binding and as provided their it is upto the students to make the choice to pursue the programme in Biochemistry or Biotechnology and the authorities at the Institute have no power to dictate the particular course which a student can undertake.
5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-Institute has contended that the provisions in the prospectus relied upon by the petitioner merely describe the separate nature of the two courses and do not in any way create a right in favour of the students to opt for either M.Sc.
Biochemistry or M.Sc. Biotechnology without regard to merit. Learned counsel for the respondent- Institute has referred to the proceedings of the Faculty Meeting held on 22-8-2007 wherein it was decided as under:-- "At last 15 out of 35 students (29 merit + 06 reserve seats) will be admitted in each discipline i.e, M.Sc. Biochemistry and M.Sc. Biotechnology. After seeking option, from the pass students in 2nd semester, for different specializations (M.Sc. Biochemistry and M.Sc. Biotechnology) merit list will be prepared on the basis of CGPA earned by the students in the two semesters, if 15 or more students have opted for each discipline (M.Sc. Biochemistry and M.Sc. Biotechnology) then options will be accented as it ".
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties with whose assistance I have also gone through the available record.
7. The first two semesters of both M.Sc. Biochemistry and M.Sc. Biotechnology being common, the decision to take the M.Sc.
' Biochemistry course or the M.Sc. Biotechnology course has to be taken after a student has passed his second semester. The question that needs an answer is whether the student has the option to join any of the two classes that he prefers or whether the option exercised by him is subject to certain limitations on account Of comparative merit or the size of the class. A perusal of the relevant part of the Prospectus shows that unless a student opts for the M.Sc. Biotechnology degree, he is presumed to pursue the course for the M.Sc. Biochemistry degree. This appears to be the position as the Prospectus visualizes students opting for Biotechnology degree but there is no corresponding provision to opt for the M.Sc. Biochemistry course. Thus, where a student does not exercise any option he can pursue the M.Sc. Biochemistry but he can join the M.Sc. Biotechnology course only if he opts for it.
8. Admittedly, the Prospectus was issued in the year, 2009 and the students joined the Institute on the faith of the representations contained in the Prospectus and were justified in entertaining the expectation that whatever was stated in the Prospectus was intended to be followed by the Institute in letter and spirit. One cannot find any other provision in the Prospectus as would dilute or limit the freedom of the students to make a choice nor has any reference been made to any rule or regulation of the institute as would suggest that the choice or option of the students to join either the course of M.Sc. Biochemistry or that of M.Sc. Biotechnology is not free but subject to any limitation or condition.
9. Learned counsel for the Institute has sought to draw support from Sultana Khokhar and 2 others v. The University of Punjab through its Registrar (PLD 1962 Supreme Court 35), Adnan Tariq v. Vice- Chancellor of the University of Punjab (PLD 1993 Lahore 341) and an unreported learned Division Bench's judgment passed in I.C.A. 182 of 2009 wherein it was held that the University authorities are vested with the power to amend the Regulations applicable at the time of admission. I think that the said precedents are distinguishable as the issue involved in the present case is altogether different as what needs to be resolved is as to whether or not the Prospectus issued in 2009 has to be followed instead of the proceedings of the Faculty meeting held on 22-8-2007.
10. According to the learned counsel for the Institute, in view of the proceedings or decision of the Faculty Meeting held on 22-8-2007, the right of the students to opt for M.Sc. Biochemistry or Biotechnology has been curtailed by limiting the number of students in each discipline to fifteen
(15) according to merit. However, I find that the aforesaid decision of the Faculty is in direct conflict with the Prospectus which gives an unconditional right to the students to exercise their choice. The decision of the Faculty cannot be reconciled with the Prospectus nor can the two be construed harmoniously. Having been issued in 2009, the Prospectus appears to have greater sanctity and has an overriding effect vis-a-vis the decision of the Faculty taken two years earlier on 22-8-2007.
In case the institute intended that as per decision of the Faculty the option should be limited by merit and number of students in each course, it could have easily made a provision to that effect in the Prospectus but, admittedly, there is no reflection of the decision of the l E Faculty in the Prospectus issued two years later.
11. In any case, the prospectus issued by the Institute has to be followed in every respect and in the absence of any condition or limitation with regard to the choice of the students to join either of the F two courses, the Institute cannot deprive the petitioner of a right which, being based on legitimate/reasonable expectation, has accrued to her. In support, I may refer to the case titled the Naila Iqbal v. Prihcipal, Government College for Women, Multan (2006 CLC 506), wherein it was laid down that "The Principal or College Council can change the conditions for regulating the admission to college but the same changes should be made in the prospectus before they are handed over to a student as before applying for admission, the student should know as to whether he/she is eligible for the admission or not? Arbitrary change in the Prospectus after its issuance is not desirable."
12. As a result of and in the light of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the act or decision of the respondent-institute to disallow the petitioner to join the course of M.Sc.
Biochemistry degree is declared and held to be unlawful and without lawful authority and the respondent-Institute is directed to allow the petitioner to join and pursue the course of M.Sc.
Biochemistry in the third and fourth semesters. There shall be order as to costs.