' Muhammad Khalid Mehmood Khan, J.--The appellant filed a constitutional petition seeking a direction to respondents for the issuance of degree of M.A (English). The learned Single Judge in Chamber dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 06.10.2015, hence the Infra Court Appeal.
2. The case of appellant is that she being the regular student of University of Sargodha, main campus passed her M.A (Education) under Registration No, 10-US-EDU-80 in the year 2010-2012.
After completing her M.A (Education) she applied for admission in M.A (English) programme at Bhakkar campus of University of Sargodha for the session 2012-2014. The respondents admitted her in M.A (English) programme and she completed her degree within two years as regular student.
The appellant when applied for the issuance of her result she was denied on the ground that she has already obtained a Master degree from the main campus of University of Sargodha, she has not disclosed this fact at the time of taking admission in M. A (English) programme, hence she is not entitled for the grant of second degree i.e, M.A. (English) programme.
3.The respondents submitted their parawise comments and stated that the appellant applied at Bhakkar campus of University of Sargodha for admission in M.A (English) programme without disclosing her earlier degree of M.A (Education) obtained from main campus of University of Sargodha. As per the admission regulations 2009 the appellant was required to provide all information of her earlier education. No student is allowed to get admission for a second degree at main campus or other campuses of the university. It was further stated that under Regulation No, 4.9 no student could be admitted to a second or subsequent Bachelor's/Master's degree courses in the Department/College/ Institute/Center. It is specifically mentioned in the admission form whether she had studied at other campus of the university and had a previous registration number. The appellant at the time of submitting the original form has not mentioned the fact of earlier M.A (Education) degree, hence the University has rightly declined to issue a degree of M.A (English) programme to appellant.
4.Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the facts available on record. It is submitted that the campus of University at Bhakkar was established in the year 2012, out of 60 seats of M.A (English) programmer only 30 students approached to the University for admission, the appellant was given admission, the appellant paid huge fee on self finance programme without knowing or having information of Regulation ,No, 4.9, it was the fault of respondent/university the university has not informed the appellant that she is not entitled to be admitted in M.A. (English) programme. The respondent/university remained silent till the appellant completed her two years study and has not raised any objection against the appellant's admission in two years. The appellant cannot be punished of the negligence of the university staff. The appellant after completing the degree programme has become entitled for issuance of final degree specially when the appellant has successfully passed the examination and as such a vested right has been accrued in her favour and it is settled principle of law that once a right came into existence that cannot be withdrawn on the basis of doctrine of locus poenitentiae. Learned counsel for appellant has relied on Mst. Basharat Jehan v. Director-General, Federal Government Education (FGEI (C/Q) Rawalpindi and others (2015 SCMR 1418) and Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary and others v. Aamir Junaid and others (2015 PLC (C.S.) 315) and submits that the appellant is entitled for the issuance of final degree.
5.Learned counsel for respondents submits that the admissions in the university are regulated under the admission rules duly approved by the statutory body of the University in terms of Section 28 of the University of Sargodha Ordinance, 2002. The regulations are specifically mentioned in the prospectus for the information of prospective students as well as their parents. The appellant obtained a degree in MA (Education) from the University of Sargodha in the session 2010-2012 and issued result card. The appellant herself without any inducement on the part of' respondents applied for M.A (English) at Bhakkar campus of respondent/ University. According to rules no student is allowed to get admission for second degree as a regular student under Regulation No, 4.9 of Admission Regulations. The appellant has intentionally not provided full particulars while submitting her admission form. As and when the respondent/University came to know about the misstatement of appellant they refused to issue the degree of M.A (English) programme under Regulation No, 4.21. The appellant managed to deceive the registration branch of the University of Sargodha by producing NOC issued by University of Punjab on the basis of bachelor degree and got registration number fraudulently.
6.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and summoned the, original admission form of the appellant.
7.It is a proven fact from the document produced by the respondents that the appellant has annexed with, the admission form a certificate from the University of Sargodha confirming that the appellant has passed M.A (Education) from University of Sargodha in the session 2010-2012, photocopy of said certificate is available with respondents along with the admission form. The respondents were asked to produce NOC which according to them the appellant submitted at the time of obtaining admission in M.A (English) programmer, the respondents have not produced the NOC but submit that the appellant provided NOC at the time of obtaining earlier admission in M.A (Education). The argument of learned counsel for respondents that the appellant produced NOC from the University of Punjab and got admission in M.A (English) programme on the basis of said NOC, is not proved from the record nor the respondents have produced the alleged NOC, meaning thereby the above said allegation is not borne out from the record.
8. No doubt under the Regulation No, 4.9 of the University of Sargodha no student is entitled to a second or subsequent Bachelor's/ Master's degree Courses in the Department/College/Institute/Center but Regulation No, 4.10 is "A migration/No Objection Certificate, in case of applicant graduated from a University other than the University of Sargodha, must be produced by the candidate within 30 days of the admission for submission to the registration branch of Registrar Office" meaning thereby the appellant within 30 days of her admission was required to submit NOC to the respondent/university but the appellant rightly not provided the NOC as she was already having registration number of University of Sargodha which is evident from the appellant's application. The facts of above said case shows that the appellant got admission in M.A (English) programme under the impression that she can obtain admission even after completing her M.A (Education) degree. It is a proven fact on record that respondent/university has not raised any objection at the time of admitting the appellant in M.A (English) programme. The appellant has successfully completed two years programme and in the entire period of two years the respondents have not challenged the appellant's admission nor any allegation was leveled against her that she succeeded to obtain admission with the connivance of any official of the respondent/university. The appellant admittedly has completed first master degree and was seeking admission in second master degree, the academic record which was required for her admission was graduation and not post-graduation, hence she has not rightly mentioned her earlier education in the admission form but annexed the photocopy of her earlier degree. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as University of Karachi and others v. Tariq Hussain and another (2012 SCMR 1694) in the above said circumstances, has held as under: "We find ourselves in full agreement with the conclusion drawn by the learned Sindh High Court in the impugned judgment. Even before us the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the Petitioner- University could not explain as to why the university slept on the eligibility of Respondent No, 1 to be granted-admission for almost two and a half years till he had completed the program with flying colours and his name was mentioned in the list of successful candidates and why the sudden awakening. He could also not state with any amount of certainty whether any action was taken against any of the staff members, who according to him were instrumental in grant of this illegal admission to the Respondent No,
1. We, are therefore, of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be punished after more than two and a half years of the alleged illegal admission when this issue was never taken up during, the tenure of the program. We, therefore, find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused."
' In Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary case supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under: "Undoubtedly such order passed by the learned High Court is absolutely valid and it has been left to the department itself to scrutinize/examine the eligibility of the respondents those-who pass the test would be retained as employees by applying, the rule of locus poenitentiae, notwithstanding that there was some irregularity in the process of selection, may be on account of one of the members, who is said to have acted as an appointing authority was not competent to sit in the same meeting. Whereas those who are not eligible or qualified shall go. This is for the department now to act fairly in terms of the direction of the learned High Court and take further action."
' Likewise Mst. Basharat Jehan case supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under: "It was held that once a person is appointed after fulfilling all the codal formalities, appointment letter is issued, it was held that a vested right is created and appointment letter could not be withdrawn."
9. The above said facts and law show that the appellant is being punished for the negligence or latches on the part of respondents officials. The appellant has successfully completed her two years programme without any objection on the part of respondents, or any complaint against her, hence she is entitled for the grant of degree.
10. The upshot of the above said discussion is that the appeal is allowed, the judgment of learned Single Judge in Chamber is set aside and, consequently the writ petition will be deemed to be allowed.