SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, J.---Through this Constitutional Petition the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:-- "(1) Directing the respondents to act in accordance to law and to give the direct admission to the eligible candidates/petitioners who are holding the degrees which are mentioned in the prospectus page No,7(i).
(2) Directing the respondents not to announce/declare the result of the entry test until they, gave direct admission of the eligible candidates/petitioners according to prospectus page No,7(i).
(3) Any other relief/s as this hon'ble Court may deem think fit and proper in view of the circumstances of the case to secure the ends of justice."
2. The petitioners case is that they applied for admission in Ph.D. on the basis that they have possessed the degree of the Master of Law (LLM) and as such eligible for direct admission in Ph.D, but the respondent No,1 issued them a letter dated 17-8-2010 for entry test which is to be held on 29-8-2010.
3. We have heard the petitioners, Mr. Shahid Ali Ansari, Advocate for the intervenor and Mr. Moin Azhar Siddiqui, Advocate for the respondents.
4. Petitioners Messrs Saathi M. Ishaq and Qadir Khan Mandokhail appearing in person have argued that the respondent malafidely called upon them to appear in the entry test though they have possessed the degree of LLM and as such are eligible candidates for the direct admission in Ph.D programme. They have mainly relied upon the letter dated 12-5-2009 written by Higher Education Commission to Mr. Abdul Sabour informing him the decision of the Equivalence Committee of erstwhile UGC, which reads as under:-- "The Committee, taking into account the admission requirements and duration of both the degrees of Master of Law and M. Phil., decided to treat Master of Law (LL.M) degree (2 years after LL.B, awarded by Pakistani Universities, at par with M. Phil degree only for purposes of job, promotion and financial benefits.
However, the equivalence certificates will be issued in each individual case on submission of documents."
5. Petitioners have also drawn our attention to section 25(2)(c), (t) and (g) of University Code of Karachi University, which read as under:-- "25(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, and subject to the provisions of this Act, and the Statutes, the Academic Council shall have the powers-- to regulate the admission of students to the courses of studies and examination in the University; to consider or formulate proposals for the planning and development of teaching and research in the University;
(g) to make Regulations, on the recommendations of the Boards of Faculties and the Boards of Studies, prescribing the courses of studies, the syllabi and the outlines of tests for all University examinations; provided that if the recommendations of the Board of a Faculty or a Board of Studies are not received by the prescribed date, the Academic Council may, subject to the approval of the Syndicate, continue for the next year the courses of studies already prescribed for an examination; (h)....................................
(i)...................................
(j).................................
(k) ..................................
(l) ..........................
6. Petitioners have further drawn our attention to Page 7(i) of the Brochure with heading 'Direct Admission to Ph.D' to the candidates possessing MS/M.Phil. M.Pharm and LL.M. or its equivalent degree to apply for a direct admission to Ph.D. programme of the Karachi University, which has a binding effect. Therefore, they have prayed that they are eligible for the direct admission in Ph.D. programme without passing any entry test.
7. An Application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. r/w Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan has been moved by applicant Muhammad Ali Shaikh for impleading him as co-petitioner. This Court allowed the applicant to plead his case as co-petitioner.
8. Mr. Shahid Ali Ansari, advocate appearing on behalf of intervenor Muhammad Ali Shaikh contended that vested right has been created in favour of the applicant as he has fulfilled the requisite requirement and as such entitled to be admitted in Ph.D. Programme. He strongly objected the entry test conducted by respondent No,1 through NTS and contended that 101 students which includes the present intervenor and petitioners have appeared in the said test and only 11 candidates were declared successful without mentioning the marks obtained by them and nothing was mentioned about the marks obtained by the rest of the candidates. He has also taken us to the Brochure of the University with heading 'Eligibility' (available at Page 38 of the file), and contended that the same does not provide the requirement of entry test for admission in Ph.D.
Programme. He also contended that there had been some irregularities, nepotism and favourtism in the test. He urged that it is the high time that Pakistani Universities must encourage advanced courses in discipline of law, as there are few Ph.Ds in the discipline of law. Learned counsel in support of his case for impleading him as co-petitioner has made reference to the cases of MOULANA ATTA-UR-REHMAN v. AL-HAJJ SARDAR UMAR FAROOQ and OTHERS (PLD 2008 SC 663) AND QURBAN ALI ABBASI v. PROVINCE OF SINDH AND 3 OTHERS (PLD 2009 Karachi 327), wherein it has been held that no order could be passed at the back of a party, particularly against a person who may be affected by such an order or which deprived him of his vested right or interest. On the point of equality, learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of MS. AFSHAN ANWAR v. GOVERNMENT OF SINDH AND OTHERS (2000 CLC 737), wherein this Court held that all citizens are equal under the law and entitled to equal protection of laws.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Moin Azhar Siddiqui learned counsel for the respondent No,1 has challenged the maintainability of the petition and argued that petitioners and intervenor have misinterpreted the phrase 'Direct Admissions' as given at Para No,7(i) of the Brochure published by the University of Karachi, it means that 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 applied for Ph.D. ate 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. He further urged 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 showing that there shall be an entrance test and the candidates who have completed their LLM are not required to do their M.Phil. however those students are not exempted from appearing in entrance test. He contended that 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. He also stated that by declaring the LLM Degree equal to M Phil. does not mean that the petitioners and intervenor are exempted from appearing in entrance test for Ph.D. Learned counsel for the respondent No,1 further argued that before official announcement in daily newspaper a meeting comprising of Pro Vice Chancellor, Dean, Faculty 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.) 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).
10. Learned counsel 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. (Law) through their respective departments. He also argued that petitioners and intervenor without any hesitation and raising any objection appeared in the entry test held on 29-8-2010 for the admission in Ph.D. (Law) in which the petitioners and intervenor stood failed the result of which was announced and published in daily 'Jang' , Karachi dated 3-9-2010, therefore the prayer clause (2) sought in this petition has become infructuous. Learned counsel therefore prayed that the petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
11. Learned counsel in support of his submissions has placed reliance on the following cases:--
(1) JUNAID INTZAR v. UHS AND OTHERS (2009 MLD 684).
(2) REHANA YASMIN v. ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY AND 2 OTHERS (2009 MLD 278).
(3) PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER v. MISS KHAQAN MAHMOOD AND OTHERS (PLD 1985 Lahore 300)
(4) NAEEM MIRZA v. GOVERNMENT OF SINDH AND 2 OTHERS (1987 CLC 1487).
12. In the first case of Junaid Intzar, wherein the Division Bench of Hon'ble Lahore High Court held that Authority to which all medical colleges were affiliated was well within its authority to lay down a policy of admission for a given year. By virtue of policy of admission laid down by the Authority, no vested right of petitioner was infringed.
13. In the second case of Rehana Yasmin, it has been held that neither such additional condition had been imposed for the first time nor it had been pointed out that any student had been given admission in M.Phil leading to Ph.D Programme in Urdu, who had not passed GAT/GRE with 50% marks.
14. In the third case of Province of Punjab, it has been observed that to grant the college authorities sufficient latitude to introduce changes in the rules and regulations contained in the prospectus, a clause is generally added binding students to abide by any changes that may be made to the rules and regulations by the competent authority from time to time.
15. In the fourth case of Naeem Mirza, the Division Bench of this Court held that University of Karachi was the authority to lay down conditions for admission to MBBS First Year Classes. Affiliated colleges also permitted to lay down additional conditions for admission with previous approval of University.
16. We have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the available record.
17. It is an admitted position that in response to the advertisement published in print media the petitioners as well as intervenor had applied for admission in Ph.D on the basis that they possessed the degree of LLM and appeared in the entry test held cn 29-8-2010 along with 101 candidates, out of which only 11 candidates were declared successful and the petitioners and intervenor remained unsuccessful. The petitioners and intervenor after availing the opportunity of appearance in the entry test without objecting the test at the relevant time have filed this petition to impugn the condition of entry test for admission in Ph.D. The condition of entry test so imposed by the authority was not only for those candidates who were applying admission in Ph.D, but also on equivalent degree such as M.S./M.Phil/M.Pharm. Additionally, it is not the case of the petitioners that this condition has been imposed for first time nor it has been pointed out that any student has been given admission in Ph.D without passing entry test. It seems that logic behind the condition so imposed is to bring scholars of international repute who can be able to complete research and development programmes with excellence in academics and nothing else. There is no force in the contention of learned counsel for the intervenor that there had been some irregularities and favouritism as there is no material available on record to prove such allegations. It may be mentioned that petitioners and intervenor were unable to persuade us to take a different view, which we had taken in the earlier petition bearing No,D-2995/2010 involving the same point.
18. In view of the discussions made above, we dismiss this petition In-limine along with listed applications.