This judgment shall dispose of writ petitions No. 1431 of 1988, 1442 of 1988, 1461 of 1988, 1510 of 1988 and 1582 of 1988 as all these petitions emanate from similar facts and involve identical questions of law.
2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are Science graduates holding B.Sc. Degrees. The year of passing the B.Sc. Examination and the major subjects offered by these petitioners at this examination are as under:-- W.P. NO. 144 ,/88, Petitioners numbersYear Subjects
(1) IInd Annual, 1987Botany, Zoology, Geography
(2) 1st Annual, 1988-do--
(3) 1st Annual, 1987-do-
(4) 1st Annual, 1987-do--
(5) 1st Annual, 1988-do- W.P.No. 1442188 (1)PETITION TOO HER EXTENT NOT PRESSED.
(2)IInd Annual, 1987 Botany, Zoology, Geography W.P. No. 1461/88 (1)IInd Annual, 1987Botany, Zoology, Geography W.P. No. 1510/88 (1)1st Annual, 1988Botany, Zoology, Geography W.P. No.1582/88 (1)1st Annual, 1988Botany, Zoology, Applied Psychology.
3. The petitioners were desirous of admission to the course leading to M.Sc. Degree in Botany/Zoology at the Institute of Biology of Bahauddin Zakriya University, Multan, and were candidates for this admission for the session 1988-89. It may be pointed out that five of the petitioners who had passed their B.Sc. Examination in the year 1987 were qualified to seek this admission in the 1987-88 session but as the admissions to the respondent-University were running late by a year, the admissions in the 1987-88 session were reserved only for those students who had graduated in the year 1986 and these petitioners were thus asked to hold on till the admissions for the next session i.e. The session of 1988-89.
4. All these petitioners then applied for admission to the said course in the 1988-89 session and have since been denied the same.
5. A declaration is sought through these petitions about the illegality of the action of the respondent-University and consequently praying for a mandamous directing the University Authorities to allow admission m question to the petitioners.
6. Defending the impugned action, the learned Legal Adviser of the respondent-University relied upon the Prospectus issued by the University regulating the admissions in question for the 1988-89 session which is the session in question. Referring to the relevant provisions in the Prospectus, the learned Legal Adviser submitted that one of the conditions precedent for admission to a course leading to Masters in Botany or Zoology was that besides having studied the subjects of Botany and Zoology at the B.Sc. Level, a candidate for admission should also have studied either Chemistry or Geology or Bio-Chemistry/Micro---Biology. His case was that since the petitioners had not studied any one of these subjects in addition to Botany and Zoology, therefore, they were not qualified for admission in question and had thus been rightly denied the same.
7. It may be mentioned here that prior to the 1988-89 session, the requirements for admission to M.Sc. Class for Botany and Zoology were as under BOTANY
(i) B.Sc. With at least 45% marks in the subject of Botany.
(ii) The candidates should have studied the following subjects in B.Sc.:-- Botany and Zoology plus Chemistry or Geography or Geology or Bio-Chemistry/Micro-Biology or Micro---Biology and Bio-Chemistry instead of Botany.
ZOOLOGY
(i) B.Sc. With at least 45% marks in the subject of Zoology.
(ii) The candidates should have studied the following subjects in B.Sc. :-- Botany and Zoology plus Chemistry or Geography or Geology or Bio-Chemistry/Micro-Biology or Micro---Biology and Bio-Chemistry instead of Zoology.
This position is not denied by the University Authorities.
8. It was, however, for the first time in the 1988-89 session that a change was introduced in the qualifications required for admission to the M.Sc. Courses in Botany/Zoology. The position which presently obtains as per the Prospectus of 1988-89 session is as under:--.
BOTANY
(i) B.Sc. With at least 45% marks in the subject of Botany.
(ii) The candidates should have studied the following subjects in B.Sc. :-- Botany and Zoology plus Chemistry or Geology or Bio-Chemistry/Micro-Biology.
ZOOLOGY
(i) B.Sc. With at least 45% marks in the subject of Zoology.
(ii) The candidates should have studied the following subjects in B.Sc. :-- Botany and Zoology plus Chemistry or Geology or Bio---Chemistry/Micro-Biology.
It will thus be noticed that the change relevant for the purposes of these petitions which was brought about through the Prospectus for the Session 1988-89 was that whereas prior to this session even those who had studied Geography alongwith Botany and Zoology at the B.Sc. Level were qualified to seek admission in M.Sc. Botany or Zoology but now the subject of Geography was omitted from the list of the permissible combinations.
9. The case of the petitioners is that they had taken up the subject of Geography alongwith the subjects of Botany and Zoology at the B.Sc. Level on the strength of the declaration of the respondent-University at the relevant time that even the study of Geography would entitle a candidate to compete for admission to Masters courses for Botany or Zoology. It was submitted that the petitioners having acted upon this solemn declaration, the University Authorities could not be permitted to subsequently alter their position to the detriment of the petitioners. It was argued that the change brought about by the University Authorities in the Prospectus could not be permitted to operate retroactively and that the students who had exercised their options at the B.Sc. Level in accordance with the requirements then prescribed by the University for admission to M.Sc. Courses, should be allowed to compete for admission to M.Sc. On the basis of the then prevailing qualifications.
10. In respect of the five petitioners who had passed their B.Sc. Examinations in the year 1987, it was further contended that they were fully qualified to compete for admission to M.Sc. (Botany or Zoology) in the 1987-88 Session and it was only on account of an act of the University that they had been asked to wait for their admissions till the next Session i.e. 1988-89. If the University Authorities had permitted them to compete for admission in the session of 1987-88, then they would have very easily walked into the M.Sc. Classes for that session. It was argued that it did not behave the University to have changed the requirements for admission to M.Sc. Classes while the petitioners were holding on and awaiting admissions at the instance of the University itself.
11. There is yet another aspect of this case. It is not denied that prior to the session 1988-89 even the students who had studied Geography alongwith Botany and Zoology were eligible to seek admission to M.Sc. (Botany or Zoology). In the Prospectus of the session in question, Geography was dropped from the list of the permissible subjects and the reason given by the University Authorities through their report submitted in this Court in reply to these writ petitions is that:-- "As a result of the experience gained, during the teaching of Botany at M.Sc. Levy, it was realized that, for better understanding of various disciplines in Botany, knowledge of Chemistry was of paramount importance. Most of the courses in Botany are based on a very good knowledge of Chemistry. Hence a student without Chemistry, at B.Sc. q. Level, will not be in a position to understand the subjects of Genetics, Physiology, Bio-Chemistry and Ecology. It was therefore decided to amend the clause relating to the subjects combination, in the Prospectus, to read as it stands today i.e. a student seeking admission to M.Sc. Botany class should have had studied Chemistry or Geology or Bio---Chemistry or Micro-Biology at B.Sc. Level. This amendment was considered necessary and in the best interest of the students for maintaining proper standard of education. It was approved by competent authority. The petitioners' applications for admission had to be refused for the reason that they did not study the subject of Chemistry at B.Sc. Level."
12. Apparently the reason which appears to have weighed with the University Authorities in dropping Geography seems to be reasonable but a bare reading of the Prospectus for the session of 1988-89 shatters this logic to bits. If the University Authorities had restricted themselves only to those students who had studied Chemistry or Bio-Chemistry/Micro-Biology alongwith Botany and Zoology at the B.Sc. Level then perhaps the decision of the University Authorities would not be open to any serious criticism. But it is surprising that on the one hand it is being stated by the University Authorities that Chemistry had proved to be an indispensable discipline of knowledge for study of Botany and Zoology at the Masters level and this was the reason being offered for dropping Geography from the list of permissible subjects but at the same time, on the other hand, the subject of Geology was being retained as a permissible subject
13. If the reasons given by the University Authorities for dropping Geography were correct then the subject of Geology should also have been dropped from the list of permissible subjects. No reason has been given for not deleting Geology in pursuance of the aforesaid logic of the University Authorities.
14. From this, it appears that either the reason given by the University Authorities for dropping Geography was a farce or the retention of the subject of Geology displayed an unfair and discriminatory implementation of the aforesaid logic of the University Authorities.
15.. In either case, the act of the University Authorities in framing the Prospectus to the extent of admissions to Masters courses in Botany and Zoology for the session 1988-89 is unfair, unreasonable, oppressive, discriminatory, unjust and arbitrary. .
16. This being the conclusion deduced from the facts, the question which requires further consideration is whether this Court would interfere with a policy competently framed by the University Authorities and declared through its Prospectus.
17. Prospectus is not a piece of legislation. It is not even a piece of delegated legislation. Prospectus, in fact, is only the manifestation of an execn4ve policy devised by the executive authorities in the regulation of a matter which is not covered by any legislative field. Since the Prospectus is only an executive action, therefore, it has been laid down that the same or any provision thereof can be struck down if the same was found to be unreasonable, unfair, arbitrary or unjust. Reliance in this connection is placed on Muhammad Iqbal Niazi v. Vice---Chancellor University of the Punjab (PLD 1979 SC 1), Shehnaz Maqbool v. The Province of Sindh (PLD 1979 SC 32) and Province of the Punjab v. Miss Khaqan Mehmood (PLD 1985 Lahore 300).
18. In view of what has been stated above it is held that the deletion of the subject of Geography from the list of permissible subjects while retaining the subject of Geology on the same list is unfair, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and discriminatory unless an intelligible differentia had been demonstrated for retaining the subject of Geology. None has been shown as yet. The provisions of the Prospectus of the respondent-University to the extent of' deletion of the subject of Geography from the list of the subjects mentioned against the requirements for admission to M.Sc. Botany or Zoology are, therefore, struck down.
19. It is, accordingly, held that the petitioners who had studied Geography alongwith the subjects of Botany and Zoology at the B.Sc. Level are eligible to seek admission in the M.Sc. Courses of Botany and Zoology and it is directed that the petitioners who thus stand qualified for admission and who have a superior merit to the ones already admitted shall be given admission in the relevant courses and delay in grant of admission to them shall not, in any manner whatsoever, operate to the prejudice of the petitioners.
20. It is clarified that no direction is being issued to the respondent---University for creating additional seats in order to grant admission to those of the petitioners who are found entitled to the same. The students who were allowed admission and possessed merit inferior to the present petitioners were impleaded as respondents to these writ petitions and it will be open though unkind, for the University to de-seat the already admitted students in order to accommodate the petitioners with superior merit.
21. Consequently, writ petitions No. 1431 of 1988, 1442 of 1988, 1461 of 1988 and 1510 of 1988 are accepted in the above terms.
22. Writ Petition No. 1582 of 1988, the petitioner wherein had studied Applied Psychology alongwith the subjects of Botany and Zoology at the B.Sc. Level which had never been a permissible combination, is dismissed.
23. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
H.B.T./N-277/L