JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---Brief background of this writ Petition is that the petitioners were admitted to M. Phil in Mass Communication during the Session 2006-2008 and after completion of first year course they were required to do the one year research and submit their thesis by 6th February, 2008. The petitioners along with their class/session fellow Agha Shakeel Ahmad were allowed one year extension for filing thesis. Thereafter Agha Shakeel Ahmad was granted further eight months extension while the petitioners request for further one year extension has been denied.
2. It is strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the grant of extension of additional eight months for the submission of the thesis to Agha Shakeel Ahmad has been allowed by the Vice-Chancellor on the recommendation of the Advance Studies Research Board. On the other hand, the petitioners were denied the request for extension in the deadline for submission of their thesis beyond the first year on the ground that there is no provision in the rules of the University. This, according to learned counsel, is purely discriminatory and it contravenes not only the provisions of Article 25 but also Article 4 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. In support of his contention the learned counsel has relied upon case entitled as Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through Chairman and others v. Shahzad Farooq Malik and another (2004 SCM R 158) and case reported as Muhammad Ramzan and 3 others v. Government of Pakistan and 3 others (2004 YLR 1856).
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents-University submits that extension to Agha Shakeel Ahmad was granted by the Vice-Chancellor on the recommendation made by the subject Super visor and the Advance Studies Research Board, while no such recommendation has been made for the petitioners.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that they should be treated equally as their other class/session fellow namely Agha Shakeel Ahmad, has force as the petitioners are admitted to the same course and the same session, therefore, it is inconceivable as to why the petitioners' class/session fellow be granted eight months additional extension while the petitioners have been denied any further extension. Regulation 19(iv) of the University Regulations reads as follows:-- ""The request of extension in submission of thesis, if needed, shall be submitted to the Advanced Studies and Research Board through the "Convener Board of Studies at least two months in advance. It shall have recommendations of supervisor(s) with clear reasons spelled out. Maximum of one year extension shall be allowed in any case".
Apparently the case of the petitioner was placed before the Advance Studies and Research Board in its meeting held on 1-6-2010 which rejected the request being contrary to rules. However, in the case of Agha Shakeel Ahmad the said rule was not put into service as in their reply it has been stated by the respondents that Agha Shakeel Ahmad was allowed to submit his thesis with an additional delay of eight months on the basis of decision of Advanced Studies and Research Board dated 30-7-2009 as under: -- "The House. Discussed the case in detail and did not agree to extend time in submission of M.Phil thesis being contrary to the Rules and Regulations. But certain members insisted to consult his supervisor before final decision. The House authorized the Vice-Chancellor to take final decision after consulting Dr. Muhammad Khalid Supervisor of the scholar".
It is, therefore, clear from the above comparison that different yardsticks have been applied by the respondent-University and its Vice-Chancellor in dealing with similarly placed people. Article 25 of the Constitution, inter alia, provides that each and every citizen of the country is entitled to equal protection of law and there shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex of the citizen. The only exception to the above rule as laid down by the honourable Supreme Court being where the people are not equally placed. Whereas in the present case the petitioners and Agha Shakeel Ahmad are equally placed. Hence, the respondent-University has no justification in meetting out a treatment to them which is different to that which was given to Agha Shakeel Ahmad.
I am fortified in my above observation with the case reported as 2004 YLR 1856 wherein it has been observed by a learned Division Bench of this Court that:-- "Provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution only conveys that persons positioned alike be treated equally in privileges conferred and liabilities. Imposed-Discrimination within the same class of persons is prohibited under Article 25 of the Constitution."
6. Moreover, all the petitioners are females, as such, there can be an inference that discrimination has been caused against the female students which is also against the spirit of Constitution of this country. Article 25(3) provides that due to the peculiar circumstances in which the women and children of this country are, the State can make special provisions to protect and uplift their status.
Thus indicating that State institutions would have to give special consideration to them while dealing with their issues.
7. In view of the above observation, this petition is allowed and the matter is sent back to respondent No.3 who would consult the Advance Studies Research Board on the submission of the thesis of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders based on the aforesaid observations, within four weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order.
8. A copy of the compliance of this order will be sent to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court by respondent No.3. Thereafter the office to put up this file as a compliance case on June 30, 2011..