This Constitutional Petition and Writ Petition No. 1404 of 1989/BWP. Danial Sarfraz v. Secretary Education, Government of the Punjab and an other) embody the same matter of fact and law, so both these writ petitions are being decided by means of this consolidated judgment.
2. Muhammad Younas and Danial Sarfraz passed their matriculation examination and they sought admission in the Government College of Technology, Bahawalpur, in the Ist year class of Session 1989-90. The respondents did not grant them admission on the ground that they were above 18 years of age at the time of admission, although they had paid the prescribed fees in the name of respondent No.2 and had been called for interview. The main contention of the petitioners is that the other candidates, who were over 18 years of age, have been admitted and they have not been admitted by the discriminatory attitude of the respondents. Secondly, it has been contended that a ban on the relaxation of age was imposed, but was later on withdrawn. A direction has been sought so that the respondents admit them in the Ist year class of their College.
3. Written statement has been filed and it has been contended on behalf of the respondents that not even a single candidate over the age of 18 years has beer admitted in the Ist year class. It has been conceded by the learned counsel for Danial Sarfraz that the over age candidates, who were admitted, their admissions have been cancelled. In this manner, the objection that the other candidates over the age of 18 years have been admitted in the College is devoid of any force.
4. The rules were relaxed in favour of the candidates over the age of 18 years, then the relaxation rules were withdrawn. If it be conceded that the relaxation rules were withdrawn against law, even then the prospectus of the College is to be perused. According to these writ petitions, the Principal could relax the age in his discretion if the candidate is otherwise qualified on merits.
5. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the eligible candidates below the age of 18 years were on the waiting list, which are about 300 in number. They have also pointed out that there are certain vacant posts, which belong to the candidates from Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) and Azad Kashmir. These seats cannot be given to the petitioners nor they are entitled to be admitted in place of the candidates, who arc below the age of 1S years.
6. Finally, it has been urged on behalf of the respondents that 10-10-1989 was the last date for admission ands even the eligible candidates could not be admitted after the said date.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners have cited Muhammad Arif and others v. Board of Technical Education and others (1986 MLD 749), Ghulam Mustafa v. The Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro and 7 others (1986 CLC 1056) and Khalid Sher v. Principal and Chairman, Academic Council, Selection Board and others (PLD 19,87 Kar. 255). In Muhammad Arif's case, certain rules were made applicable with retrospective effect reducing the relaxation in upper age limit. It was held that the Board of Technical Education, though competent to make amendment in rules for admission yet it could not alter the same to operate with retrospective effect. In Ghulam Mustafa's case, it has been laid down that once a vested right has been created in a candidate, the said policy of admission as stood on that date would be enforceable. In PLD 1987 Kar. 255, the admission of Khalid Sher was refused because his mother, who had been divorced, was having domicile of another District and it was held that the domicile of the parents was not relevant in the admission of a candidate because his own domicile was to be considered.
All these precedents do not help the petitioners.
8. In the circumstances of the case the rules, which existed at the time of admission, were that the principal of the College could, in his discretion, relax the age limit of the petitioners. He has not done so because the other eligible candidates below the age of 18 years were deprived of their vested right of admission. I, therefore, see no merits in both these Writ Petitions and dismiss the same. I, however, make no order as to costs.