SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---Through this constitutional petition filed in terms of Art. 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, following prayer has been made: "...It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this petition may very kindly be accepted and impugned order dated 24.01.2019 passed by respondent No.1 may kindly be declared Illegal, unlawful, unjust and set-aside, consequently respondents 'thesis may graciously be accepted and duly evaluate the Ph. D. thesis of the petitioners and award them their Ph.D. degrees if they rise up to the standards of the University in order to save the long strenuous struggle of the petitioners. It is further prayed that during the pendency of the writ petition, the operation of the impugned order dated 24.01.2019 may kindly be suspended.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded ".
2. At the very outset, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners got admission in Ph.D. Urdu Program in Sessions Spring 2010-2013 in Division of Arts and Social Science University of Education, Lower Mall Campus, Laho re and were duly registered on 28.04.2010 by the Controller of the said .University . Further contends that upon completion of one year course work, examination were held which was successfully passed by the petitioners and later on University qualifying exam/ comprehensive Exam were held in September , 2011, and its result was notified on 12.12.201 1. It is submitted that after passing of Comprehensive Exams, the petitioners submitted their synopsis in the mid of year 2012 for approva l by Board of Studies (BPS) and by the Board of Advance Studies and Research and in the start of year 2013, a message was received to submit copies of synopsis again which went missing in University record. Adds that the same were again submitted and were placed in 24th meeting of Board of Studies (BOS ) held on 21.02 .2013 and on the recommendation, the same were placed in Board of Advance Studies and Research for consideration and approval in its 22nd meeting held on 09.12.2013 and the same were approved and minutes of meeting were issued on 31. 12 .2013 and said approval was conveyed to Director/Principal, Division of Arts and Social Science, Lower Mall Campus/respondent No.3 on 17.04.2014. It is submitted that on 10.12.2015, the petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 approached the office of Director/ Principal, Division of Arts and Social Science, Lower Mall Campus who refuse d to accept the thesis and on 11.12.2015, the petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 submitted applications so that their thesis may be entertained and on personal hearing, a revelation was made that the thesis shall be submitted under Ph.D. Regulations 2003 instead of Ph.D. Regulations 2013 and admission of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were regularized under clause 3.8 of the Ph. D. Regulations 2013 vide notification dated 26.05.2014. Further contends that the petitioners filed writ petition No. 33525/2016 against order dated 23.09.2016 whereby this Court vide order dated 21.02.2017 directed the petitioners to approach Vice Chancellor , University of Education, Lahore who was directed to proceed with the matter sympathetically while keeping him within the four corners of law for redressal of grievance of the petitioners.
Further contends thereafter the petitioners filed Criminal Original No.67406-W of 2017 and vide order dated 18.05.2018 the vice chancellor was again directed to decide the representation afresh. Further contends that the petitioners approached the Vice Chancellor who vide order dated 24.01.2019 dism issed the representations of the petitioner without any legal justification.
3. On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposes this petition vehemently . It is submitted that the petitioners have failed to submit their thesis within stipulated time as envisaged in rule 4.2 and 4.3 of Ph. D. Regulations 2003 that is minimum 4 years and maximum five years. Further contends that the petitioners Ana Khalid and Farhat Nisar were registered in Ph.D. Urdu Program on 28.04.2010 and the synopsis of petitioner No. 1 Ana Khalid was approved by Director Advisory Committee held on 29.05.2015 and after approval of synopsis, she has to complete the research work on or before 01.02.2015. Further contend that the synopsis of petitioner Farhat Nisar was approved on 10.03.2014 and she had to complete her research work at the end of December , 2015 or report to her supervisor whereas the synopsis of petitioners Muhammad Tariq and Fahad Waqar Azeem were approved on 09.12.2013 and they had to submit their thesis within the stipulated period but they failed to do so. Further contends that the maximum period for submission of thesis is five years from the date of admission and now the residency period of said job has also been expired and the petitioners are no more student of the institution.
4. Arguments advanced pro and contra have been heard and record available on file perused.
5. There is no denial to this fact that the petitioners got admission in Ph:D. Urdu Program in session Spring 2010- 13 in Division of Arts and Social Scienc es University of Education Lower Mall Campus, Lahore and were duly registered on 28.04.2010 by the Contro ller of Examination, University of Educ ation, Lahore. After passing of Comprehensive Exam, the synopsis of the petitioners were placed in 24th meeting of Board of Studies (BOS) held on 21.12.2013 and on recommendation, the synopsis were placed in Board of Advance Studies and Research (BASAR ) for consideration and approval in its 22nd meeting held on 09.12.2073 and which were duly approved and minutes of the meeting were issued on 31.12.2013 and said approval was conveyed to the Director/ Principal, Division of Arts and Social Sciences, Lower Mall Campus on 17.04.2014. It is noticed that according to clause 3.8 of Rules and Regulations, regarding Ph. D. Program, 2012, the respondent No.1/V ice Chancellor regularize the admission of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 in Ph. D. Urdu upon passing their Comprehensive Exams vide letter dated 26.05.2014. It is noticed that as per clause 4.2 Ph.D. Regulations, 2013 the minimum period for the submission of thesis shall be two years and maximum shall be four years, to be counted from the date of notification by the Registrar as per clause 3.8 of the said Regulations. The clause 4.2 and clause 3.8 of the Ph.D.
Regulations 2013 is reproduced as under: Clause 4.2 of the Ph.D. Regulations 2013.
"The minimum period for the submission of thesis shall be two years and maximum shall be four years, to be counted from the date of notification by the Registrar as per clause 3.8"
Clause 3.8 of the Ph.D. Regulations, 2013 "The admission to the program shall be provisional until the candidate has passed the Comprehensive Examination (Comp Exam) conducted at the end of course work. Upon passing the Comp Exam, the admission into the Ph.D.
Program shall be regularized through notification by the Registrar ."
The said notification regarding regularizing the admission of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 was issued by the Registrar on 26.05.2014 and the minimum period of submission of thesis shall be two years and maximum shall be four years permissible under clause 4.2 of the Ph.D. Regulations 2013. So far as the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that Ph.D. Rules 2003 are applicable to sessions 2010-2013, it is noticed that when the admission of the petitioners Nos. 7 and 2 was regularized according to clause 3.8 of Rules and Regulations regarding Ph.D. Program 2012, the same Rules and Regulations are attracted through which the minimum period for the submission of thesis shall be two years and maximum shall be four years to be counted from the date of notification by the Registrar as per clause 3.8 of Ph.D. Regula tions 2013 and HEC authorities given final date as 31.12.2015 to the petitioners Nos. 3 and 4. It is noticed that on 11.12.2015, an 'application was submitted by petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 so that their thesis may be entertained and upon personal hearing they were informed that the thesis shall be submitted under Ph.D. Regulations, 2003 instead of Ph.D. Regulations 2013. It is further noticed that the admission of petitioners No. 3 and 4 have not yet been regularized by the Registrar . Perusal of the impugned order dated 24.01.2019 passed by Vice-Chancellor/respondent No.1 reveals that the petitioners have been deprived from filing their Ph.D thesis and to award them their Ph.D. Degree. Non-allowing the said petitioners to submit their thesis shows that it is violative of basic principle of natural justice. The denial in this regard is in conflict with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 4, 9, 14, 18 and 20 read with Article 37
(c) of the Constitution. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the dictum of law laid down in the case of "Imdad Hussain v. Province of Sindh through Secretary to Government of Sindh, Karachi and 3 others" (PLD 2007 Karachi 1 16), wherein it has been held as under:-- "----Arts. 9, 14, 18, 20, 37(c) & 199---V alidity---Right to education was a fundamental right covered by Arts. 9, 14, 18 and 20 read with 37(c) of the Constitution and, therefore, any unreasonable restraint, hindrance or condition on its exercise would be ultra vires the Constitution, irrespective of whether the same was imposed by an administrative or executive act, by some statutory rule or even by the statute itself----"
The admission of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 was regularized vide notification dated 20.05.2014 vide clause 3.8 of Rules and Regulations, 2013 whereas the admissions of petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 have not so far been regularized through notification. by the Registrar and as per clause 4.2 Ph.D. Regulations, 2013 the minimum period for the submission of thesis shall be two years and maximum shall be four years, to be counted from the date of notification by the Registrar as per clause 3.8, hence, the petitioners have right to submit their thesis, hence, they have accrued a right which cannot be withheld without due process of law. It is settled principle of law that technicality of law and rule shall not operate as an absolute bar in the way of the court as preference in this regard would defeat the substantial justice. Guidance in this regard is sought from the dictum of law laid clown by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of 'Mst. Shahista Bibi and another v. Superintendent Central Jail Mach and 2 others' (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 15) wherein it has been held as follows:- "----Hardship case---Substantial justice by court--T echnicality of law---For doing substantial justice in the true sense in a hardship case, technicality of law and rule shall, not operate as an absolute bar in the way of the court because giving preference to the technicality of law would defeat substantial justice"
In the case of Nizamuddin and another v. Civil Aviat ion Authority and 2 others (1999 SCMR 467) following dictum of law has been laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan:- "----Art. 25---Equity of citizens---Govern ment is not supposed to discriminate between the citizens and its functionaries cannot be allowed to exerci se discretion at their whims, sweet-will or as they please rather they are bound to act fairly , evenly and justly".
6. For the foregoing facts and circumstances, the petition in hand is accepted. The impugned order dated 24.07.2079 passed by the Vice-Chancellor/respondent No. 1 is set aside and the respondents are directed to entertain and duly evaluate the Ph.D. Thesis of the petitioners and award them their Ph.D. degrees if they rise upon the standards of the University in order to save the long strenuous struggle of the petitioners.
7. Petition allowed .