SHAH KHAWAR, J.---This judgment will dispose of the instant writ petition as well as the connected W.P. No.62/2014 and W.P. No.3266/2014, as common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions.
2.Through this constitutional petition, Sadia Jamal, petitioner has challenged the verbal orders alleged to have been passed by respondent No.3/Regional Director, National University of Modern Languages (NUML), Multan Campus, whereby the petitioner was restrained to sit in the examination starting w.e.f. 03.06.2014.
3.Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on the basis of advertisement dated 14.07.2013, the petitioner got admission in M. Phil in English (Linguistic) in the National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad (Multan Campus), she studied in the said Programme, however, later on the respondents informed the petitioner that her admission has been cancelled due to non-fulfillment of criteria of admission, therefore, she filed Writ Petition No.62/2014 and on the basis of order in the said writ petition, she appeared in examination in 1st semester.
4.Later on, the petitioner deposited requisite fees for second semester midterm and attended the classes but on 12.3.2014 respondent No.3 summoned the petitioner in his office and directed her not to come next day to attend classes because her attendance is not being marked vis--vis the second semester midterm on the ground that her admission has already been cancelled.
Thereafter, for the second semester, the petitioner had to file another Writ Petition No.3266/14 and on the basis of order in the said writ petition, she appeared in midterm examination. Subsequently, on 03.06.2014 in end term examination of second semester, the petitioner has been verbally informed that she could not sit in the examination, hence the instant writ petition.
5.The respondents submitted their report and para wise comments, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner does not fulfill the admission criteria. The petitioner was given provisional admission in M.Phil (Linguistics) subject to scrutiny of her academic record and was never allotted the registration number. The eligibility criteria for the admission as mentioned in clause-"C" of the Programme is reproduced below:-- "M.A English linguistics and literature, M.A English, M.Sc. applied linguistics, BS English-4 years program, CGPA of 2.5 out of 4.0 in semester system or 2nd div in last exam. Qualifying NTS devised GAT General with 50% score as per HEC policy and qualifying NUM L's entrance-subject test."
6.It is further mentioned in the para wise comments that grading of the petitioner in M.A. English was to be assessed on the basis of semester system. The petitioner secured grade "C" less than 2.5 CGPA and transcript reflected 59.23% marks which probably the board misinterpreted the same as second division, based on annual system. It is further averred that the petitioner' had obtained 59.23% marks based on semester system. Thus, the petitioner did not fulfill the pre-requisites of the admission in M. Phil as advertised in the newspaper.
7. Heard.
8. Perusal of the record reveals that whole of the controversy revolves around two aspects of the matter:-- i.Whether the petitioner has passed M.A. (Eng. & Lit) in semester system in which basic criteria is obtaining of 2.5 CGPA out of 4.0? ii.Whether the petitioner has passed M.A. (Eng. & Lit.) in 2nd division in last examination?
9. In support of her contention, the petitioner has appended transcript of NUML University, Islamabad and degree of M.A. (Eng. & Lit). The transcript appended as annexure "C" transpires that the petitioner had passed M.A. (Eng) Examination in four semesters from August, 2003 to June, 2005, completed on 15.08.2005 within a duration of two years. Further transpires that the petitioner passed examination in four semesters by securing 1777 marks out of 3000 in "C" grade with overall percentage of 59.23. In the same manner, the petitioner had appended annexure "C-1", i.e. copy of the degree M.A. (Eng) issued by NUML University, Islamabad (August, 2003 to June, 2005) which indicates that the petitioner has passed M.A. (Eng) examination in grade "C" according to the semester system.
10. The criteria for admission in M.Phil has been that the petitioner must have obtained 2.5 CGPA out of 4.0, but the transcript and degree speak about grade "C" obtained by the petitioner and the numbers have not been calculated on the basis of CGPA. In the report and parawise comments, it is mentioned that the admission of the petitioner was cancelled on the basis of probable misinterpretation of the Provisional Selection Regional Committee/Board of University considering grade "C" as 2nd Division. It was further submitted that after provisionally admitting the petitioner by the Provisional Selection Regional Committee, the matter was sent to the Main Campus at Islamabad and anomaly was pointed out vide letter dated 01.01.2014 issued by the Director Academics to the petitioner intimating that petitioner's admission has been cancelled.
11. Version of the petitioner that she having secured 59.23% marks instead of 60% did not meet criteria of admission, seems to be correct.
12. The other important aspect of the matter is that when the petitioner was allowed to appear in the first semester by the respondents, vested right had been accrued in her favour. In such like situation, question arises that either principle of locus poenitentiae (power to rescinding till a decisive step taken) was available to the University /respondents. To answer this query, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Superior Courts in the cases of "
(PLD 1969 Supreme Court 407), Pakistan, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Hima atullah Farukhi, (1991 M LD 1605 Lahore), Muhammad Bilal v. The Principal, National College of Textile Engineering, Faisalabad, (1997 SCM R 15), Chairman, Selection Committee/Principal, King Edward Medical, College, Lahore and 2 others v. Wasif Zamir Ahmad and another, (1997 M LD 813), Wasif Zameer Ahmed, v. Chairman Selection Committee (The Principal King Edward Medical College), Lahore, (2000 YLR 1422), Sarnia Rashid and another v. Vice-Chancellor, Azad Jammu and Kashmir University, Muzarfarabad and others (2003 YLR 556 Lahore), Imtiaz Ahmed Lone v.
University of Engineering and Technology through Vice-Chancellor, Taxila and 2 others, (2007 CLC 1492 Lahore), Muhammad Rafique and another v. Director In service Agriculture Training Institute and another (2013 CLC 1080 Lahore), Ammaris Mehtab Chaudhry v. Vice-Chancellor, Sargodha University and others.
13.Relying upon above judgments, it is contended that the benefit of the principle of locus penitential was not available to the respondents. When the petitioner was granted admission and that too her deposit of admission fee thus, a vested right had been accrued in her favour which could not have been undone subsequently. It is also argued that if the petitioner at the time of admission did not meet the requisite qualifications, the same should have been denied by the respondents at its very inception.
14.On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on (1995 M LD 1862), (1997 CLC 358), (1997 CLC 350), (2004 M LD 1722) and (2006 CLC 1691).
15.The case laws as relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are distinguishable as each and every case has its own facts and circumstances. It has been consistently held by the Honorable Superior Court of the country that rather the power to rescind an order passed by the government or an authority always remains available with the concerned authority but such power could only be exercised when a decisive step in pursuance of the said order has been taken place. It is on the record that the petitioner was granted admission by the university relying upon the educational testimonials submitted by the petitioner but the university did not observe due- diligence. Such cancellation at this stage cannot be approved and held illegal on the basis of rule of locus penitential. This is also an admitted fact that the petitioner did not commit any fraud and the transcript and degree as appended were genuine. Relying upon the above quoted judgment, this Court is of considered view that the respondents at a belated stage could not have cancelled the admission of the petitioner when a vested right had been accrued in her favour. Since a decisive step was taken by the respondent by allowing the petitioner to sit in the 1st Semester and same could not have been rescinded by the respondents on the basis of the principal of locus penitential.
16.Consequently, the impugned order of cancellation of admission in M.Phil (Eng) of the petitioner passed by the respondents is hereby set-aside and same is declared as illegal and void. The respondents are directed to issue registration number to the petitioner with retrospective effect.
The examination, which the petitioner has passed, the result thereof shall be declared and the petitioner be allowed to continue the course of M.Phil (Eng) with all consequential liabilities and benefits.
17.In view of above, the instant writ petition is allowed.