MUHAMMAD ASLAM MIAN, J.-This appeal under section 3 (2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, is directed against order dated 21-12-1980 of a learned Single Judge of this Court at Lahore delivered in Writ Petition No. 11352 of 1980 whereby the learned Single Judge after an observation dismissed the writ petition.
2. Briefly the facts furnishing the background of this appeal are that the appellant passed F. Sc.
(Pre-Engineering) Intermediate Examination at Lahore securing 593 out of 1000 marks. He having served in the National Cadet Corps from September. 1976 to February, 1978 stood credited by ?0 marks as such the total coming to 613 against 1000 marks. The appellant applied for admission for the B. Sc. (Engg.) professional class, Session 1979-80 to the Institute of Chemical Engineering & Technology, Punjab University Lahore. The admission was to be 'regulated in accordance with the Rules along with the terms and conditions as contained within the prospectus at page No. 15 where the emphasis was purely on merit. The total number of seats mounted to 111, out of which 80 seats were to be allocated on merit while the remaining 31 were reserved for admission against special quotas as on page 18. Five seats which were later on swollen to 8 were reserved for nominees of Chemical and Allied Industry/Metallurgical Industry.
3. The appellant bad applied utilizing the call on purely merit basis as well as a nominee against the seats reserved for industries. His nomination was by the Chairman Reichhold Reisin (Pakistan)
Ltd. Which chemical industry had a liaison with the Institute by affording a scholarship of Rs. 250 p. m. For the deserving students of the Institute.
4. The appellant after having lost a chance on purely merit side was expectant to be given admission in the reserved seat quota of the industry on the strength of his nomination as well as his meritorious placement. On the rejection from this side too, the grievance of the appellant was deepened since 7 out of 8 candidates securing much lower marks than him were given admission and he in spite of his higher merit was refused.
5. The appellant for redress brought forth a petition against the respon--dent within the Constitutional permissibility questioning the refusal as to his admission from the second side maintaining that he was fully qualified for the admission and the respondents in denying that have acted in violation of the Rules governing and regulating the subject of admission and also acted arbitrarily, capriciously and in an inequitable manner and as such the petitioner's right under the Constitution had been violated and be sought the help of the Court for issuing a direction to the respondent to grant admission to him against the seats reserved in accordance with the merits of the candidates inter se.
6. The respondents placed certain material in the form of report and memos on the call of the Court in the writ petition, the main flourish of which was as to the criteria of selection against the reserved seats which according to the respondents was :- "(1) Status of the nominating industry and its impact on national economy, its contribution and relevancy to the subject taught at this Institute ;
(2) Collaboration of nominating organisation and association with the University and the Institute in terms of facilities for training of our students, joint research and design projects, institution of gold medals and scholarships and scope of employment of the graduates of the Institute ;
(3) Status of the person making nomination within the organisation (preference to Chairman/Managing Director/General Manager) pros--pects of employment of the nominee/recommendee in Chemical and Allied Industry/metallurgical Industry ;
(4) Academic performance of the candidate."
7. The learned Single Judge was also intimated that a Boar,4 of Control constituted of 14 members (including 3 experts from the industry) after considering the importance of the industries made the selection, with the result that the Board selected students with as low marks as 504 adding that the prime consideration before the Board was not the marks but the recommendations of the important Chemical Industries. It was admitted before. The learned Single Judge that the Chemical Industry of which the appellant was a nominee was providing funds for scholarship.
8. The learned Single Judge disposed of the petition or the appellant with an observation :- "The facts given above do make out a case of great injustice. However as this Court finds no direct legal support to upset that decision and substitutes that of its own, yet it may be pointed out that it certainly does not inspire confidence in the mind of the litigant. In the circumstances, though I do not allow this petition, I desire a copy of it be sent to the Chancellor for his perusal and to give some relief, if he finds it desirable."
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has addressed us in the Intra Court Appeal firstly, drawing our attention to pages Nos. 15, 18 and 19 of the prospectus of the Institution maintaining that a prospectus is always a self-contained manual whether as to the Rules, terms or conditions since it with its text serves as an inducement to the candidates who relying upon it seek admission and not on other Rules or Regulations which are not active part of it. Secondly, the admission of a candidate is primarily based upon merit,, therefore, it will reign supreme even in the matter of reserved seats and on merits the appellant stands much above those who have been given admission against reserved seats, thirdly that once it is shown that the appellant falls within the category of reserved seat for exclusion there must be some rule. Next to this the learned counsel has argued that the appellant stands supported by nominations of two different concerns within the require--ment as to the reserved seats. Lastly, the learned counsel has urged that after the finding by the learned Single Judge that it was a case of great injustice, he erred in withholding the issuance of a writ. In support of the competence of the petition as brought the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on Maher Alavi v. Pakistan PLD 1980 har. 609,which decision thrown light on the principle of natural justice.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied in his arguments on page 18 of prospectus (as to the reserved seats) and has also invited our attention to Admission Regulation of Punjab University 1979 and in addition referred to other material placed on the record such as the material conside--rations as to the reserved seats, the manner of selection by the Board and its constitution and the material applications thereto. The learned counsel for the respondents has laid emphasis while arguing his case that academic qualifications is the last one, there precede three other categories as such academic qualification is one of the considerations and not all. He has further urged as to the cross objections having been filed by the respondents as to the expunction of remarks passed by the learned Single Judge in his observations m the order appealed from. The exception so taken appertains to the factual correctness as to the three recommendations of the National Fertilizers Corporation to the Institute of Chemistry, and the remarks of the learned Single Judge "the facts given above do make out a case of great injustice . . . . In the mind of the litigant."
11. After hearing both the learned counsel as to their contentions we propose to proceed at once to the question which is in real gist decisive of the present case and that is the criteria which has been adopted for allocating the reserved seats. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents as to the number of categories pertaining to consideration of reserved seat is not free from fallacy. The categories which have been shown 4 in number are in fact two categories No. 1 the mutuality with the Institution of the nominating Industries or Industrial concerns which has been split into 3 categories in fact are nothing but the detail of one consideration and second category is academic qualifications or merit clause.
12. Now whether the standard or criterion as it is placed has been worked out in ratio and proportion so as to achieve the object of the standard so set towards the culmination of balance within the framework, and to appreciate the working of the formula, two important items are to be considered side by side i. e. The industries in liaison and the academic qualifications. While giving weight to one consideration the other is not to be ignored altogether. Considering the importance of industry a candidate with a little less marks may come in but not that a candidate with low second division be given admission and another with First Division be refused. Relative importance of the recommending body cannot reasonably rule out the merit altogether. Both factors have to be kept in view and one cannot be given disproportionate weightage so as to exclude the other merit altogether. What has happened in this case is that by leaning towards one side more than is reasonably required the candidates in the far lower scale regarding their position in marks being Second Divisioners have been made to supersede the appellant who in comparison by position stands on a higher pedastal being First Divisioner. It is curious enough to note that the candidates' dearth in position in respect with marks has been supplemented by the magnitude of the recommender but in the case of the appellant's dearth if any in respect of the recommendator has not been allowed to be supple--mented by the position in merit of the appellant. By looking at the working of the criteria it can be safely seen that the formula has been applied out of proportions, resultantly it is unjust, unreasonable, and arbitrary rendering the decision as without lawful authority.
13. The institutions regulated by rules are not to by-pass in result the own set criteria under the rules and regulations by simply working it out Here in this case everything has been dealt with thus that it cannot be said that the result falls within the ambit of prospectus which serves as an inducement to the seekers of admission to a particular academy.
14. The learned Single Judge's observation provided the respondents ample opportunity to consider and accommodate the appellant but almost a session's time has gone by without any material result.
15. In view of the aforegoing discussion, after accepting the appeal, the act of the respondents refusing admission is declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The respondents are directed that they shall provide admission to the appellant in immediately coming session. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, the respondents will pay to the appellant half of his costs.
As to the cress objections it is suffice to say that in the presence of the above finding, cross objections lose their signifi--cance, so are hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.