MUHAMMAD AQIL MIRZA, J.---This Intra-Court Appeal filed under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance against the judgment dated 14-9-1995 passed in Writ Petition No.10736 of 1995, arises to the facts and circumstances hereinafter appearing.
2. The appellants and some other students obtained admission in the S.A.H. Institute of Computer Science in January, 1992 for a Bachelor Degree Course in Computer Science of three years duration. The appellants' batch will be described hereinafter as the 1992-95 batch. Earlier to that 1990-93 and 1991-94 batches were already studying for the Bachelor of Computer Science Course in the aforesaid Institute. The University of the Punjab was requested by the Institute that B.C.S. Degree 'tie granted to the participants of the two batches i.e. 1990-93 and 1991-94, without holding any Comprehensive Examination, because the students of those batches had left the Institute after completing their studies and before the finalization of the format of the examination. This request was considered by the Board of Studies in Computer Science, m the Faculty of Engineering and Technology of the University of the Punjab m its meeting held on 19-11-1994. As per para. 8 of the minutes of the meeting, the Board of Studies recommended the conferment of degrees on the students of the two batches of the S.A.H. Institute, in the following terms:-- "After extensive discussion and keeping in view the high quality of education at the S.A.H. Institute of Computer Science and its close coordination with the University, it was decided that the Board of Studies in Computer Science would recommend that the results of the internal examination conducted by the S.A.H. Institute of Computer Science would be accepted in lieu of the final Comprehensive Examination for the first two batches of B.C.S. Students of the Institute, who had completed the 3-year course in December, 1992 and 1993 only. This would be a one time acceptance and under no circumstances would be cited as a precedent by any subsequent batches.
All subsequent batches of all affiliated colleges/institutions would have to appear in the Comprehensive Examination to be conducted by the University of the Punjab. This was agreed."
On the basis of the above recommendation of the Board of Studies, the Vice---Chancellor of the Punjab University in anticipation of the approval of the Syndicate approved the following Transitory Regulation exempting the students of the 1990-93 and 1991-94 Batches of the S.A.H. Institute of Computer Science from the University Comprehensive Examination vide notification dated 23-7- 1995, which is reproduced below:-- "Notwithstanding anything contrary contained in the existing Statutes/Regulations relating to the Bachelor of Computer Science Examination, the result for the sessions 1990-93 and 1991-94 of the candidates of S.A.H. Institute of Computer Science, shall be declared on the basis of internal examination, conducted by the Institute. This shall be a one time concession and no subsequent batch shall claim a similar concession."
3. In pursuance of the aforesaid Transitory Regulation, the result of the candidates of the two batches of 1990-93 and 1991-94, of the S.A.H. Institute of Computer Science was declared vide two separate notifications dated 2-8-1995 (Annexures A and B of the writ petition). This is admitted position that these results were declared on the basis of the performance of the candidates in their internal examinations under the semester system in the S.A.H. Institute and no final comprehensive or other examination was held by the University.
4. The students of the 1992-95 batch completed their course in December, 1994 and left the Institute. It may be mentioned here that the students of the 1990-93 and 1991-94 batches had also completed their studies in December, 1992 and 1993, as finds mentioned in the forequoted minutes of the Board of Studies. It is evident from Annexure ' F' of the writ petition that the University decided on 25-7-1995 to hold comprehensive examination of the three years B.C.S. Degree Course. Prior to that no format appears to have been finally approved or issued for holding the examination by the University.
5. It was in the background of the aforementioned circumstances that Constitutional petition was filed by some of the students of the S.A.H. Institute of Computer Science belonging to the 1992-95 batch for the relief that the benefit of the Transitory Regulation should also be granted to the students of the 1992-95 Batch and their result should be declared on the basis of their Grade Point average obtained by them in their internal examination conducted by the Institute. It was claimed by them that their case was similar to the candidates of the 1990-93 and 1991-94 batches and they are entitled to be similarly treated. This petition was contested by the University in the written statement and it was averred that the Transitory Regulation was one time concession given to the aforesaid two batches and the same cannot be cited as a precedent for the benefit of the 1992-95 batch. It was further urged on behalf of the University that in its letter of affiliation dated 27-4-1991 it was clearly stated that whatever system, the students of the Institute would have to take the University Examination. The letter dated 27-4-1991 granting affiliation to the Institute is reproduced below:-- ---From The Registrar, University of the Punjab, To The Director, S.A.H. Institute of Computer Science, 22-A, Faisal Town, SUBJECT:GRANT OF AFFILIATION TO S A H INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER SCIENCE LAHORE TO TEACH BACHELOR OF COMPUTER SCIENCE COURSE.
Dear Sir, Please refer to this Office Letter No.540/P. Dated 26-2-1991, on the subject cited above.
I am to inform you that the Vice-Chancellor has, in exercise of the powers vested in him under section 15(3) of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973, been pleased to grant affiliation to your Institute to teach Bachelor of Computer Science Programme Course with effect from the academic sessions 1990-91 according to the University Rules and that after the completion of their Course, the students of the Institute will have to take final examination of the University.
Yours faithfully, (Sd.).
Officer on Special Duty for Registrar."
6. The learned Judge in Chamber, after considering the view-points of the writ petitioners and the University, dismissed the writ petition on 14-9-1995. It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been filed.
7. The appeal was admitted on 16-10-1995 and thereafter it was adjourned to a number of dates of hearing. On 14-1-1996 the case was adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the University "with a clear understanding that the case shall not be adjourned on the next date of hearing due to non-availability of the learned counsel for the parties"; On 21-1-1996 the case was again adjourned. The case came up for hearing on- 25-2-1996. While -Raja Muhammad Anwar, learned counsel for the appellant was present, no one appeared for the respondents despite several calls. Accordingly, the appeal is being decided ex parte.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the appellants belonging to the 1992-95 Batch are similarly placed to the students of the 1990-93 and 1991-94 batches in material particulars, in that, they also left the S.A.H. Institute like the students of the previous two batches after completing their studies, in December, 1994 and the format of the comprehensive examination was not finalised/issued even in the year 1995. Pressing into service Article 25 of the Constitution, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the appellants cannot be discriminated and they have to be treated alike with the student of the earlier two batches. By relying on the minutes of the meeting held on 19-11-1994 of the Board of Studies, which has been reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment, learned counsel contends that exemption from appearing in the comprehensive examination was granted to the students of the two batches of the S.A.H. Institute of Computer Science on the ground that the Institute imparted high 4uality education to the students in close coordination with the University. Coupled with this was the other consideration that the students of the said batches had completed their studies in December and had left the Institute before the finalization of the format of the comprehensive Examination. The Transitory Regulation granting this exemption was issued by the Punjab University on 23-7-1995 and it was subsequent to that that the results of the 1990-93 and 1991-94 batches were declared by two separate notifications, dated 2-8-1995.
9. Raja Muhammad Anwar, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that in respect of the 1992-95. Batch also exactly the same considerations were available and as such benefit of the Transitory Regulation aforesaid has to be granted to the candidates/students of this batch as well.
10. We have to consider whether on 2-8-1995 or even on 23-7-1995 anything existed which created a distinguishing feature for the 1992-95 batch. None, however, is available on the record. On behalf of the University no special circumstances was pleaded before the learned Single Judge to show that 1992-95 batch was not similarly placed. We find that all the three batches received the education in the S.A.H. Institute of Computer Science which was found by the Board of Studies to be an Institute of high quality education, imparting education in close coordination with the University.
All the three batches received education in the semester system under which result is declared on the basis of the grading obtained in the internal examinations conducted by the Institute. In respect of all the three batches the students had left the Institute after completion of their studies.
The format of the comprehensive examination of the University was issued on 25-7-1995 as is evident from Annexure ' F' of the writ petition. However, by then, the students of the third batch had also completed their studies and left the Institute long long ago. It may thus be seen that all the three batches i.e. 1990-93, 1991-94 and 1992-95 were governed by the same set of facts and circumstances and they had to be treated alike. In fact the recommendation for exemption from the comprehensive examination of the University to the first two batches was based on the all important consideration that the students had received instructions/education in a high quality institute in close coordination with the University. This condition was equally available in respect of the third batch. Therefore, when the Transitory Regulation was promulgated/enforced on 23-7- 1995, the participants of the third batch (1992-95) who had already completed their course were equally entitled to the benefit under the Regulation. By refusing the benefit of the Transitory Regulation to the third batch a clear discrimination has been made.
11. Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of law to all citizens is reproduced below:-- "25.---(1) All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law.
(2) There shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex alone.
(3) Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the protection of women and children. "
The question relating `to the meaning of equal protection of law and the scope of Article 25 of the Constitution came up for consideration before the honourable Supreme Court in I.A. Sharwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and others (1991 SCM R 1041), the operative part whereof is reproduced below:-- "From the above-cited cases the following principles of law are deducible:--
(i) That equal protection of law does not envisage that every citizen is to be treated alike in all circumstances, but it contemplates that persons similarly situated or similarly placed are to be treated alike;
(ii) that reasonable classification is permissible but it must be founded on reasonable distinction or reasonable basis;
(iii) that different laws can validly be enacted for different sexes, persons in different age groups, persons having different financial standings, and persons accused of heinous crimes;
(iv) that no standard of universal application to test reasonableness of a classification can be laid down as what may be reasonable classification in a particular set of circumstances, may be unreasonable in the other set of circumstances;
(v) that a law applying to one person or one class of persons may be constitutionally valid if there is sufficient basis or reason for it, but a classification which is arbitrary and is not founded on any rational basis is not classification as to warrant its exclusion from the mischief of Article 25;
(vi) that equal protection of law means that all persons equally placed be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed;
(vii) that in order to make a classification reasonable, it should be based---
(a) on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those who have been left out;
(b) that the differentia must have rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by such classification."
It is thus clear that persons equally placed have to be treated alike both in privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed and in order to make reasonable classification the differentia must have rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by such classification. We find that all the three batches were similarly placed in view of the following objective conditions which were the same in respect of all the three batches:--
(i) all of them were given instructions/education under the semester system;
(ii) all of them received education in the S.A.H. Institute of Computer Science, which was held to be a high quality institute of Computer Science imparting education in close coordination. With the University; and
(iii) the students of all the three batches had left the institute on completion of the study before they were called upon to take the examination.
Therefore, respectfully following the principles of law laid down in the case of I.A. Sharwani (supra), we hold that on 23-7-1995 when the Transitory Regulation was issued there was no justification to discriminate the third batch of the appellants. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellants/candidates of the 1992-95 Batch are equally entitled to the benefits flowing from the Transitory Regulation dated 23-7-1995. This means that they are entitled to the declaration of their result for the three-year Degree Course in Computer Science on the basis of their performance in the internal examinations under the semester system, conducted by the S.A.H. Institute.
12. For what has been discussed above, this appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and respondent No.2 (Punjab University) is directed to declare the result of the B.C.S. Examination of the students/candidates of the 1992-95 Batch of the S.A.H Institute of Computer Science, Lahore on the basis of their performance/result obtained in their internal examinations conducted by the Institute, as has been done in respect of the 1990-93 and 1991-94 batches of that Institute. There will be no order as to costs.
13. Before parting with the case, it is clarified that such of the students/candidates belonging to the 1992-95 batch of the S.A.H. Institute of Computer Science, who opt to appear in the comprehensive examination of the University and do not want their results to be declared on the basis of their performance in the internal examinations conducted by the Institute, would be allowed to take the comprehensive examination of the University.