' IJAZ AHMAD, J.---All the respondents were served through the Chairmen of the departments concerned and by substitutive service, by publication in the daily newspaper Jang. Those who have not presented themselves are ordered to be proceeded ex parte. The parties are ready to advance the arguments. All these cases will be treated as notice cases. The parties do not opt for submission of further pleadings. The University relies in all the cases on the comments submitted in Writ Petition No,14161 of 2012. The same should be read in all the petitions.
2.
2. This order will decide Writ Petitions Nos.13641, 13287, 13276, 13249, 13229, 13290 and 14161 of 2012.
3.
3. Writ Petition No,13641 of 2012 concerns the Discipline of M.Sc. Chemistry. Writ Petitions Nos.13287, 13249, 13229 and 13276 of 2012 concern the Discipline of Zoology and Botany. Writ Petition No,13290 of 2012 relates to the department of Master of Business Administration. Writ Petition No,14161 of 2012 concerns the Faculty of Law.
4. Bahauddin Zakariya University the respondent-University, advertised the opening of admission to the various faculties for Master and post-graduate degrees. The prospectus was also issued. The last date for making the applications in all the Disciplines was set at 21-9-2012. The petitioners, respondents in all the aforementioned petitions and many others applied in order to seek the admission. The criterion for determination of the merit was the sum total of the marks obtained in the aggregate and in the subject concerned in which the admission was sought. After the first, the second merit list was displayed. As per the petitioners, they were selected for admission to the respective Disciplines and their names appeared in the first or the second list displayed by the respondent-University. In case of the petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos.13249 of 2012 13290 of 2012 and 14161 of 2012, the dues were also paid by the petitioners. At this juncture, the respondent-University changed its criterion for determination of the merit. According to the new criterion recommended by the equivalence committee, the merit was to be determined on the percentage of the marks obtained by giving weightage as under:--
(a) Metric 30%
(b) FA/FSc.. 30%
(c) BA/BSc. 40%
5. ' The vice Chancellor of the University, vide Notification No, Acad/Equiv./2012/9897, dated 5-7- 2012 in exercise of powers vested in him under section 16(3) of Bahauddin Zakariya University Act, 1975, approved on behalf of the Academic Council and the Syndicate, the recommendations of the Equivalence Committee.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had applied according to the old criterion. They had been declared successful and were allowed to take admission in various Disciplines for which they had applied. Their names appeared in the merit list and the some of the cases, as mentioned above, the petitioners had paid the dues. A substantial right had accrued to them. The criterion once set up, and the merit fixed, could not be changed and the lists once displayed, could not be taken off; that the respondent-Vice Chancellor could not pass the Notification while acting under section 16(3) of the Act ibid, as no emergent situation calling for an immediate action subsisted on that day; that, even if, an emergency situation had occurred and an order passed, the respondent-Vice Chancellor had to report his action taken or the order passed for approval before the authority. The meeting of the Syndicate had taken placed on 17/18-11-2012 and the notification passed by the respondent-Vice Chancellor having not been approved by the Syndicate, has lost its effectiveness; that the admissions are the regular feature, the respondent-University should have formulated its criterion for admission before hand and should have not changed it after the closing day and after displaying the merit list.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-University contends that the other Universities were following the Semester System whereas the B.Z.U. Was following the Annual System of examinations. The Admission Committee and the Equivalence Committee had proposed a change and a criterion was fixed for admission to the University in order to save the students who had passed the examination under the auspices of B.Z.U. From any discrimination and discredit. The Vice Chancellor in exercise .Of the powers vested in him under section 16(3) of Bahauddin Zakariya University Act, 1975 has rightly come to a conclusion that an emergent situation had arisen which called for an immediate action that had resulted in passing the impugned notification; that all the applications of the petitioners were considered according to the new criterion but those who did not succeed on the new criterion could not be given admission; that the respondent-University has a right to regulate the admission and to change and alter its criterion; that although meeting of the syndicate was scheduled to be held on 17/18-11-2012 yet could not continue on the second day when the matter of this dispute could be taken on account of shortage of the quoram. He refers to the case of petitioner in. Writ Petition No, 13641/2012 and submits that the name of this candidate did not appear in the first or the second merit list even under the old criterion of merit, therefore, he has no case at all for grant of admission. He however, submits that names of the petitioner in Writ Petition No,13249 of 2012 appeared in the merit list under the old criterion and she had also paid the dues. Same was the case of the petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 13290/2012, 13229/2012,13276/2012 and 14161/2012. In the last case, the petitioner succeeded under the new criterion as well, however, he was given admission in the Evening Course whereas he opts for admission in the Morning Course as under the old criterion, he was placed at Serial No,2 of the list.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and, also gone through the record.
9. The petitioner in Writ Petition No,13641 could not find a room in first or subsequent merit list under the old admission policy. He could not succeed in obtaining the admission under the subsequent criteria. He does not have a case to press.
10. As per record of the University, the names of the petitioners, in Writ Petitions Nos.13249, 13229 and 13276 and petitioners Nos.3, 6, 7 and 8 in Writ Petition No,13287 of 2012 appeared in the merit list. In all the cases except the petitioners in Writ Petition No,13287 of 2012, they have paid their dues (Botany Zoology Department). The names of petitioners in Writ Petition No,13290/2012 (MBA) and in Writ Petition No,14161 of 2012 (Law) also appeared in the merit list issued under the previous criteria.
They had also paid their dues. The petitioner in Writ Petition No,13229 of 2012 has been given the provisional admission by Baha-ud-Din Zakriya University, Multan in consequence of an injunctive order passed by this Court. The petitioner in Writ Petition No,13290 of 2012 has been given admission in the evening classes under the changed criteria. He presses for the admission in the morning in order to be a comrade of more meritorious students and in order to get rid of the aggravated evening fees. A substantial right had accrued to all these petitioners under the old policy carried in the prospectus. Any change occurring after display of the merit list will not take away their right.
11. Moreover section 16(3) of Baha-ud-Din Zakriya University Act of 1975 empowers the Vice Chancellor to take immediate action as he may consider necessary in an emergency only. In order to exercise this power, there has to be an emergency, of a certain gravity, that in the consideration of the Vice Chancellor necessitates the taking of an immediate action. The decision that such a situation exists and the choice of the action has to be made by the Vice Chancellor provided the necessity to deviate from the normal procedure satisfies the objective test. In the instant case the impugned order does not find a mention of these pre-requisites. There was no emergency in existence, so grave in nature that required immediate action. The matter of admission in university is a regular and recurring feature, it cannot be regulated by use of power under section 16(3) of the Act. Reliance is placed on (2000 YLR 1700) titled "Naghmana Subhan v. Islamia University through Vice Chancellor and 3 others". Such an act, if justifiably taken has to be reported to the Syndicate for seeking its approval. The matter of equivalence has to be dealt with by the Academic Council after the recommendation of Equivalence Committee and is to be finally approved by the Syndicate. The meeting of the Syndicate had though taken place, the order passed by the Vice Chancellor yet wants an approval of the Syndicate. When the law prescribes certain mode of doing a thing, or for taking an action, it has to be done in that manner alone. Since the petitioner/petitioners in Writ Petition No,13641 of 2012 did not succeed in finding a room in the merit list issued under the previous criteria, therefore this petition is dismissed. The Writ Petitions Nos.13249, 13229, 13276, 13290, 14161 of 2012 and 13287 of 2012 to the extent of petitioners Nos.3, 6, 7 and 8 are accepted. The petitioners in the accepted petitions, who are not innumerous, shall be granted admission to the discipline they were seeking for. The petitioner in Writ Petition No,13290 of 2012 (MBA) stood at Serial No,2 of the first merit list under the previous criteria. He shall be admitted to the morning classes of the same discipline. The differential of fees in morning and evening sessions should be adjusted. The other successful candidates under the old criterion of admission have either succeeded in having admission to the University or have declined to agitate, therefore, I decline to make a declaration about the legality or illegality of the impugned order in order to save the university from a total chaos and to save an invaluable academic year of the students.