' MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J.---Mst. Uzma Rani, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, contending that she qualified in Ashahadat-ul-Alimmiya Fil Aloom-ul-Islamia Wal Arabia from Wafaqul-Madaris (Al-Arabia)
Multan Pakistan in 2007. Thereafter, she applied to the Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan so as to obtain an equivalence certificate. To her good luck, such a certificate was' issued to her, and she was informed through Letter No.Acad/Equiv.18 Vol./XX/162 dated 14-2-2009 that her qualification, viz., Ashahadat-ul-Alimmiya Fil Aloom-ulIslarnia Wal Arabia is equivalent to M.A. Arabic/Islamic Studies for teaching Arabic and Islamic Studies in the University and Colleges. However, for other purposes, she would have to qualify in two additional subjects other than Arabic and Islamic Studies at the level of B.A. From a recognized University. Besides, she would have to qualify in the compulsory subjects of Pakistan Studies and Islamic Studies at the B.A. Level.
2. In the wake of the aforementioned equivalent certificate issued by the Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan, she got herself registered with the University under Registration No.211-ZM-12272 and sat for the examination held in April-May, 2011 by the University under Roll No.16805. To be precise, she appeared in the subjects of Punjabi, Education in addition to the two compulsory subjects, namely, Islamic Studies/Ethics and Pakistan Studies. Resultantly, she secured 361 marks out of 500, thus she succeeded in crossing the threshold criteria laid down by the Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, the details whereof have been set out in the preceding paragraph.
3. The petitioner continued her studies. She joined Government Post Graduate College, Muzaffargarh for M.A. Urdu Classes. She studied there for two years. The Admission Form of the petitioner was submitted by the Principal of the said Government College to Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan, and she was all set to appear for her M.A. Urdu (Part-I) Examination. But just before the holding of the examination in 2013, the petitioner learnt that her roll number was withheld by the University, obliging her to institute the Instant writ petition.
4. In view of the urgency involved, this Court allowed the petitioner vide order dated 30-5-2013 to appear in the examination provisionally under Roll No.2911 assigned to her but not handed over to her by the respondents.
5. Comments were called for from the respondents, who took the stance that the petitioner was ineligible to appear in MA Urdu Examination held by Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan.
According to the comments furnished by the respondents, the petitioner had not passed the English Paper at B.A. Level and without it, her qualification could not be equated with B.A. It was elaborated in the comments that only B.A./B.Sc. Graduates with second division are permitted to get admission in M.A. Urdu under the Rules of the University.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the demand made by the respondents to the effect that the petitioner should first pass the English Paper at B.A. Level is totally unwarranted and untenable. He argues that the respondents are trying to read into the equivalence certificate issued by them to the petitioner. He is at pains to explain that the petitioner fulfilled all the conditions laid down in the equivalence certificate before her applying to the respondents for her registration with Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan. He also scoffs at the regulation/rule relied upon the respondents to deny the issuance of the Result Card to the petitioner. He is mystified that when the University had issued the roll number, there was, is no justification to withhold the result of the petitioner regarding his passing M.A. (Urdu) Part-I. He produced a copy of the Result Card downloaded from the Web of the University. Towards the end of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that not only the Result Card be issued to the petitioner regarding his appearing and passing M.A.(Urdu), Part-I, but a direction be also issued to the respondents to let the petitioner appear in M.A. (Urdu) Part-II, without causing any obstruction or hindrance to her.
7. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed this petition, maintaining that unless the petitioner appears in the subject of English at the B.A. Level, she could not be allowed to take the examination of M.A. (Urdu). Incidentally, he has placed reliance upon the equivalence certificate issued by the respondents to fortify his submission. He has put forward the argument that two wrongs cannot make one right. He admits that respondents issued the Registration Card to the petitioner, acknowledging her registration with the University for further studies, but he explains that the Registration Card was issued due to misunderstanding and confusion. According to him, an omission and error on the part of the respondents would not confer any right upon the petitioner. No sooner was it revealed to the respondents that the petitioner was ineligible to appear for M.A. (Urdu) examination than the respondents immediately withheld the roll number of the petitioner. As regards the assertion of the petitioner that she passed M.A. (Urdu)
Part-I Examination with flying colours, learned counsel for the respondents underscores that had petitioner not been allowed to sit for the said examination by this Court, albeit provisionally, the petitioner would have been stopped in her tracks. Be that as it may, Bahauddin Zakariya University is not willing to relax its rules or to relent to accommodate the petitioner. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondents places reliance upon the judgments reported as "Muhammad Younis Iqbal and another v. District Returning Officer, (District and Sessions Judge), Gujranwala and 9 others" (PLD 2005 Lahore 695), "Naeem Ullah Khalid and another v. Dr.Hafiz Mushtaq Ahmad and 3 others" (2007 YLR 1418), "Miss Sidra Naeem v. Vice-Chancellor, Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan and 4 others" (2012 MLD Lah. 1824) and an unreported judgment of this Court passed in "Mst. Shamshad Kanwal v. Controller of Examination, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan" (W.P. No.1303 of 2012).
8. I have given patient hearing to the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their assistance.
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner duly qualified Ashahadat-ulAlimmiya Fil Aloom-ul-Islamia Wal Arabia from Wafaq-ul-Madaris (Al-Arabia) Multan Pakistan in 2007. Again, it has not been denied by the respondents that the petitioner applied to Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan for the Equivalence Certificate. It goes without saying that such certificates are not issued in routine, rather a Body comprising eminent Educationists makes such decisions after due deliberations.
Going by the Equivalence Certificate issued to the petitioner through the Letter No. Acad/Equiv.18 Vol./XX/162 dated 14-2-2009, the petitioner was held qualified to teach Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University level. In other words, her Ashahadat-ul-Alimmiya Fil Aloom-ulIslamia Wal Arabia from Wafaq-ul-Madaris (Al-Arabia) Multan Pakistan Sanad was equated with M.A. Arabic/Islamic Studies. But this is only one aspect of the matter under consideration. The Sanad holders of the aforesaid Sanad are required to undergo further studies if they aim at seeking employment in fields other than teaching. Again, this additional qualification is meant for securing employment, not for other purposes. Even so, it is being assumed by all concerned and taken for granted by the respondents that even for further studies, such a Sanad holder would have to qualify in two additional subjects other than Arabic and Islamic Studies at the B.A. Level. Furthermore, he/she will be required to qualify in two more compulsory subjects, namely, Pakistan Studies and Islamic Studies at the B.A. Level. As spelt out hereinabove, the petitioner embarked upon the journey suggested in the equivalence certificate, and she successfully qualified in Punjabi, Education, Islamic Studies and Pakistan Studies in the examination held by Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan Pakistan in April-May, 2011. Interestingly enough, the Result Card issued by the respondents to the petitioner respecting the aforesaid examination opens with the following words:-- "Result Card of two Additional subjects of BA Level(After Wafaq UL Madaris), Annual Examination 2011 (Equiv-No 44/2752/R.S dated 25-05-1983) Held in April-May, 2011" (emphasis provided).
10. It is painfully obvious from the documents annexed to the writ petition that prior to joining M.A.
(Urdu) Classes, the petitioner had already crossed the Rubicon. Having come up to the criteria laid down by the respondents, they were not to impose a new conditionality. It seems that they are attempting to place curbs and fetters on the right of the petitioner to study further in order to better/improve her prospects in life. The reference made by the respondents to the prospectus issued by them for the year 2012 is inept, misplaced and irrelevant, to say the least. It would not take even a person of mean intelligence to figure out that this prospectus is offered to the students who intend to take classes at the campuses and on the premises of the Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan. The prerequisites for entering Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan's Campuses have had no application to a candidate who simply seeks to take an examination held by Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan. It bears repeating that at the time of sending Admission Form by the petitioner, she was a student at Government Post Graduate College, Muzaffargarh.
11. This brings me to the case-law cited at the bar. With respect to the learned counsel for the respondents, all the judgments relied upon by him are distinguishable on facts. In the case of Muhammad Younis lqbal (PLD 2005 Lahore 695), the question was whether the Petitioner possessed the requisite qualification to be a candidate for the seats of Nazim and Naib Nazim, and whether he was eligible under section 152(1)(e), Punjab. Local Government Ordinance, 2001. It is crystal clear from the facts set out in the citation that there the petitioner had not done Matriculation, and claimed to have been conferred Shahadatul Sanvia Sanad. The Inter Board Committee of Chairmen of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education had declared in its Memo. No.IBCC/ES/MISC./1.219, dated 21-7-2005 as under: "Subject: Equivalence of Matriculation or Secondary School Certificate from recognized Institutions.
' Kindly refer to your Letter No.F.3(4)/2005-Elec., dated 21-7- 2005 on the above subject. Inter-Board Committee of Chairman considers the following certificates of local and foreign educational qualifications equivalent to Secondary School Certificate issued by any Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education in Pakistan:
(i) Grade 1-from any recognized/ accredited school/college in USA.
(ii) 0 Levels in five subjects UK including subject of English from any recognized institution located outside Pakistan.
(iii) 0 Levels in seven subjects including the compulsory Subjects of English, Urdu Pakistan Studies and Islamiat.
'Shahadatul Sanvia from any recognized institution/Wafaq located in Pakistan subject to passing the subjects of English, 'Urdu and Pakistan Studies at SSC Level, from any BISE of Pakistan." (Emphasis added)
12. A bare perusal of the afore-quoted memo issued by the Inter Board Committee shows that it was simply considering Shahadatul Sanvia Sanad issued by Wafaq. It had had nothing to do with Ashahadat-ulAlimmiya Fil Aloom-ul-Islamia Wal Arabia from Wafaq-ul-Madaris (Al-Arabia)
Multan, Pakistan. Secondly, Shahadatul Sanvia Sanad is equivalent with Matriculation Certificate, while Ashahadatul-Alimmiya Fil Aloom-ul-Islamia Wal Arabia from Wafaq-ul-Madaris (Al-Arabia)
Multan Pakistan is equivalent with M.A. Arabic/Islamic Studies as per the Equivalence Certificate issued by Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan. The condition of passing of English subject was intended for the holders of Shahadatul Sanvia Sanad only. But this condition could not by any stretch of imagination be read into the Equivalence Certificate regarding the holders of Ashahadat-ul-Alimmiya Fil Aloom-ul-Islamia wal Arabia Sanad. Had this been so, it would definitely have been provided in so many words in the Equivalence Certificate issued by the respondents to the petitioner.
13. The second case relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents and reported as 2007 YLR 1418 (supra) also dealt with Shahadat-ul-Sanvia Sanad, and this case too arose out of an election dispute relating to the qualification and election of Nazim and Naib Nazim to be elected under section 152 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance (XIII of 2001).
14. The third case cited at the bar and reported as 2012 MLD 1824 (supra) has no relevance at all to the question at issue.
15. The upshot of the above discussion is that the actions of the respondents to withhold the Roll Number of the petitioner and prevent her from appearing in M.A. Urdu (Part-I) and now sitting over and holding back her Result Card are declared illegal, unlawful, without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The respondents shall, therefore, issue the Result Card to the petitioner forthwith regarding her passing M.A. Urdu (Part-I) Examination held by them in 2013 (in which the petitioner appeared under Roll Number 16805). They shall also facilitate her in taking M.A. Urdu (Part-II)
Examination.
'This petition is allowed in the above terms.