' This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions No,7303 of 1993, 7304 of 1993 and 4728 of 1993 which involve similar controversy.
2. The petitioners in all these petitions are residents/domiciled either of Provinces of Balochistan/N.-W.F.P or of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. After having obtaining Diplomas in Veterinary Medicine from the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, they applied for admission to M.Sc. Classes of the University but were denied admission by respondent No,1 which led them to file these petitions.
3. According to the petitioners the only reason for denial of admission was that as they were not domiciled in the Province of Punjab thei applications could not be considered unless they had been nominated for admission by the Government of their respective Provinces.
4. In their written statement filed by the respondents it has been stated that some of the petitioners were refused admission also for the additional reason that the grades obtained by them were not up to the requisite standard.
5. In support of these petitions, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that. Neither in the University of Agriculture Faisalabad Act, 1973 nor in the Statutes and Regulations governing the admission to M.Sc. Classes of the University of Faisalabad, there was any restriction that the candidates must belong to Province of Punjab or the applications of others would not be considered unless they had been nominated by the Governments of Provinces where they were domiciled. It was also argued that the refusal of the respondents is violative of Article 22 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which prohibits denial of admission to educational institutions on the ground of place of birth alone.
6. In reply, Mr. Abdul Hameed Butt, the learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that in the notice for admission to the M.Sc. Classes, it was specifically provided that the candidates from Azad Jammu & Kashmir and Provinces other than Punjab will be considered only if they were duly nominated by their respective Governments. He maintained as the petitioners did not fulfil this condition, they were not entitled to admission.
7. According to section 27 of the University of Agriculture Faisalabad Act, 1973, power to regulate admission of the students to the course of studies and examinations in the University vests in the Academic Council. Section 31 authorises framing of Regulations for admission of the students to the University and the conditions under which the students are to be admitted. Section 31(2) provides that the Regulations are to be prepared by the Academic Council of the University which are then to be submitted to the Syndicate for approval.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents was asked to show as to whether there was anything in the Statute or Regulations framed by the Academic Council and approved by the Syndicate from which it could even be inferred that admission to M.Sc. Classes, was restricted to candidates domiciled in Punjab only. He was unable to do so and had to concede that there was no express provision either in the Act or the Statutes to that effect.
9. He, however, in order to sustain his submission sought to place reliance upon letter dated 13-2- 1993 addressed by the Director of Advance Studies, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad to the Director Livestock and . Dairy Development, N.-W.F.P, Peshawar (a copy of which has been filed as Annexure `B-1' to W.P. No,4728 of 1993). This letter, however, does not improve the case of the petitioners. As already noticed, the power to regular aadmission and to prescribe conditions for that purpose vests in the Academic Council and the Syndicate which can be exercised by framing Statutes and Regulations. The Board of Advance Studies University of Agriculture, Faisalabad has been set up only for the purpose of admitting students in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the Academic Council and Syndicate. It cannot of its own add or strike off anything from the Statutes and Regulations framed by the competent authority. Even otherwise, the aforesaid letter does not have the status of a regulation nor has the same been improved by the Syndicate.
' In view of this fmding, it is not necessary to deal with the contention that the refusal to grant admission to the candidates belonging to other provinces would be violative of Article 22 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
10. There is no dispute that the petitioners in W.P. No, 4728 of 1993 are otherwise qualified for admission to the M.Sc. Classes. However, so far as the petitioners in Writ Petition No,7303 of 1993 and 7304 of 1993 are concerned they lack the requisite qualifications prescribed by Regulation 1 of the Regulations which is to the following effect:--
(1) A candidate seeking admission to the Course for the Degree of Master of Science in full and partial residence must:
(i) have passed the Bachelor's Degree Examination or an equivalent examination such as D.V.M.
Etc. In at least 2nd Division or with C.G.P.A of 2.50 from a recognized institution, in a field of study relating to the subject he desires to take up.
11. It has been asserted by the respondents that cumulative grade percentage average of these petitioners is less than 2.50. The learned councel for the petitioners is not in a position to deny the correctness of this assertion. He, however, tried to argue that as the petitioners had obtained second division in the examination of Diploma in Veterinary Medicine, they fulfilled alternative qualification prescribed by the Regulations.
12. This argument is fallacious. As has been pointed out by the respondents and is not even denied by the learned counsel, the examination of Diploma in Veterinary Medicine is based upon Semester System in which the candidates are awarded grades and not divisions. This fact is evident from the certificates produced by the petitioners themselves along with these petitions which do not any where mention anything about the division. The learned counsel, however, urged that as the petitioners have secured more than 50 per cent. Marks, they should be deemed to have passed the examination in 2nd Division. Such assumption is wholly unfounded in view of the fact that the examinations were conducted under the Semester System. It has been explained by the respondents that the reference to the 2nd Division in the aforesaid regulation is relatable to those examinations like B.A./B.Sc. Where the candidates are placed are awarded divisions like 1st, 2nd and 3rd. The examination in which the petitioners appeared is, however, based upon a different pattern and system in which cumulative grade percentage average and not divisions are awarded. It therefore, follows that the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 7303 of 1993 and 7304/93 having not securing cumulative grade percentage average of more than 2.50 were not entitled to admission and their applications were rightly refused.
14. Before parting with these cases, it is necessary to take notice of an argument raised on behalf of the respondents that these petitions were not competent for the reason that the petitioners had not invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Chancellor under section 11-A of the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad Act, 1973.
15. This argument of the learned counsel has no merit. It is evident from the provision of section 11-A that the power conferred upon the Chancellor is of a limited nature and is supervisory in character.
Be that as it may, as the refusal to grant admission to the petitioners on the ground of their domicile was clearly without jurisdiction, the mere fact that the provisions of section 11-A have not been invoked especially when the aforesaid remedy is not efficacious cannot be a ground for refusing the relief to the petitioners.
' In view of what has been stated above, Writ Petitions Nos. 7303 of 1993 and 7304 of 1993 are dismissed while Writ Petition No,4728 of 1993 is allowed and the action of the respondents in refusing admission to the petitioners is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. No order as to costs.