' NAIMUDDIN, J--By this constitution petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, the petitioner seeks a declaration that Mehran University of Engineering & Technology, Jamshoro, respondent No,1, is not selecting the petitioner for Bachelor of Engineering Course in the Batch for the year 1983-84, acted without lawful authority and also seeks a direction to select the petitioner for admission in the University in Bachelor of Engineering Course.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner is a resident of Moro Town in District Nawabshah. He passed his H .S. C. Parts I & Annual Examination of 1983, held by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sukkur, in "B" Grade, securing 707 marks out of 1100 marks. He has also carried out N.C.C. Training entitling him to 20 additional marks on account thereof.
3. The petitioner on 22-1-1984, applied for admission in the University in Bachelor of Engineering Course persuant to the prospectus issued by respondent No,1, from Moro Town, District Nawabshah, a place of residence, study and domicile of the petitioner which fell within the rural area of District Nawabshah, in which District as per prospectus only Nawabshah Municipal Area was declared as urban area and the rest of the area of the district was declared as Rural Area for which area 56 seats were allocated to candidates seeking admission in the said University for study of Bachelor of Engineering Course for the academic year commencing from 1983-84.
4. On 8-3-1984, respondent No,1 called the petitioner for interview before the Admission Committee.
He was however, not selected by the Selection Committee though according to the petitioner he had secured more than 66% marks while respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and a number of other candidates who were selected from the Rural Area had secured much lesser marks than the marks secured by the petitioner. The reason found out by the petitioner for not giving him the Admission was that Moro Town where the petitioner resides was subsequently on 30-4-1984, included in the Urban Area of District Nawabshah.
5. It is the case of respondent No,1 in the counter-affidavit that through oversight and bona fide mistake Moro Town, in district Nawabshah was considered as Rural Area and as such the same was not included in the prospectus for the year 1983-84, against the Urban Area. It is further claimed that subsequently on representation of the citizens and letters received from other authorities it transpired that in the year 1982, the Government of Sind vide Notification No, S.O.-II - 2(6)181, dated 11-10-1982, had declared Moro Town to be a Municipality as such the same was treated as Urban Area. Therefore, the matter was referred to the Syndicate which in its meeting held on 30-4-1984, treated Moro Town as Urban Area. Consequently, some applicants including the petitioner were shifted from the list of Rural Area to that of Urban Aria and since the percentage marks of the petitioner from the Urban Area were less he was not selected for admission in the University.
6. Therefore, the short question that falls for consideration is whether the respondents could shift Moro Town from Rural Area to Urban Area, with retrospective effect so as to affect the rights of the petitioner based on the prospectus issued by the University much earlier and on the basis of which he had applied on 22-1-1984, for admission in the University in the Bachelor of Engineering class and was interviewed.
7. We have heard Mr. Niamatullah J. Qureshi learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kamaluddin learned Counsel for respondent No,l. No one has appeared on behalf of remaining respondents.
8. There is no doubt that the Government of Sind by notification, dated 11-11-1982, had declared Moro Town Committee to be a Municipality and as such the same was to be treated as an Urban Area but we enquired from Mr. Kamaluddin, learned Counsel for respondent No,1 whether the University was bound under any law to follow the said notification of the Government of Sind or it had to decide on its own. The learned Counsel clearly stated that there is no such law. Indeed, he pointed out that Syndicate of the University had decided in its meeting held on 30-4-1984, to treat Moro Town as Urban Area lie however, was not able to point out any ..rule or provision in the prospectus or otherwise where under such a change could be given retrospective effect.
9. An admission to a college on the basis of seats reserved for a particular area, in our view, is a substantial right, as such the right could not be affected by amending the prospectus with retrospective effect. We think the principle of locus penitential would apply to this case (See Pakistan v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi (PLD 1969 SC 407). Petitioner's right for admission in the college in our opinion was to be decided on the basis of the prospectus issued by the University, since he had already applied on its basis within the time fixed and had been interviewed particularly in absence of any provision in the prospectus itself or in any other law or rules empowering to give to any decision of the Syndicate retrospective effect notwithstanding the accrual of airy right meanwhile. Therefore, the petitioner's right to admission was to be governed by. the provisions- of the prospectus as it existed at the time within which the 'application for admission was to be filed. Indeed if we take any other view it might operate to the prejudice of certain applicants who could otherwise apply and get admission in other Universities. No doubt in this case to the petitioner had applied for admission in the Government Dawood College of Engineering and Technology and was selected. But he found it more convenient to study in respondent No,1 University.
10. We are fortified in our view by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Constitution Petition No, D-91 of 1981 (Engineer s/o Pormanand v. Mehran University of Engineering & Technology & others) wherein our learned brother Zahoorul Hag, J. dealing with a similar question in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the judgment observed as follows: "2 It, therefore, appears that the notification issued on 23-9-1980, had not been validly issued as the Syndicate had passed resolution to that effect on 4-12-1980. In any case, even if the notification of 23-9-1980 could be considered to be validly issued the same was issued after the candidates had submitted their applications and had received their invitation for the interviews and had been ultimately interviewed on 20th August, 1980. It has been held in innumerable cases that a notification cannot be issued with retrospective effect and it cannot affect the rights which have already, been accrued in favour of a particular person. We are, therefore, of. the view that on 20th August, 1980, the petitioners had a right to be considered as rural area candidates of Jacobabad district and they had a right to be selected on that basis and the later notification of September 1980 or of December 1980, could not affect the rights of the petitioneRs,
3. in the case before us in fact the Registrar of the University in his counter-affidavit has not challenged the force of the prospectus issued by the University and we cannot even conceive that the University would not be bound by the prospectus it itself issues and we, therefore, are of the view that the petitioners had a right to be considered in the light of the instructions contained in the prospectus which was duly issued by the university and it has not been alleged that it was issued without any authority. In fact the attempt of the university was to change that prospectus with retrospective effect in September, 1980, but that was not lawful. These two petitions are accordingly allowed and the university is directed to admit the petitioners as it has not been challenged that the petitioners are entitled to be selected on the rural seats in case there was no other candidate."
11. We would accordingly, direct respondent No,1 to admit the petitioner in the University in the course for which he had sought admission, as it is not claimed that the petitioner would not have otherwise been selected in the interview, for, admittedly, he had secured much more marks than many of the candidates who have been given admission in the University from rural area of Nawabshah District.
' Under the circumstances, parties are left to bear their own costs.