This judgment shall dispose of the following' writ petitions as the common questions of facts and law are involved therein:----
(1) Writ Petition 7426 of 1995(29) Writ Petition 1487 of 1996
(2) Writ Petition 7577 of 1995(30) Writ Petition 1488 of 1996
(3) Writ Petition 14012 of 1995(31) Writ Petition 1760 of 1996
(4) Writ Petition 14013 of 1995(32) Writ Petition 1817 of 1996
(5) Writ Petition 14024 of 1995(33) Writ Petition 2117 of 1996
(6) Writ Petition 14398 of 1995(34) Writ Petition 2118 of 1996
(7) Writ Petition 15059 of 1995(35) Writ Petition 2119 of 1996
(8) Writ Petition 16083 of 1995(36) Writ Petition 2120 of 1996
(9) Writ Petition 17883 of 1995(37) Writ Petition 2121 of 1996
(10) Writ Petition 17885 of 1995(38) Writ Petition 2122 of 1996
(11) Writ Petition 17886 of 1995(39) Writ Petition 2123 of 1996
(12) Writ Petition 17887 of 1995(40) Writ Petition 2124 of 1996
(13) Writ Petition 17888 of 1995(41) Writ Petition 2125 of 1996
(14) Writ Petition 271 of 1996(42) Writ Petition 2126 of 1996
(15) Writ Petition 272 of 1996(43) Writ Petition 2127 of 1996
(16) Writ Petition 273 of 1996(44) Writ Petition 2128 of 1996
(17) Writ Petition 274 of 1996(45) Writ Petition 2129 of 1996
(18) Writ Petition 275 of 1996(46) Writ Petition 2130 of 1996
(19) Writ Petition 276 of 1996(47) Writ Petition 2131 of 1996
(20) Writ Petition 277 of 1996(48) Writ Petition 2132 of 1996
(21) Writ Petition 648 of 1996(49) Writ Petition 2133 of 1996
(22) Writ Petition 649 of 1996(50) Writ Petition 2134 of 1996
(23) Writ Petition 741 of 1996(51) Writ Petition 2135 of 1996
(24) Writ Petition 742 of 1996(52) Writ Petition 2136 of 1996
(25) Writ Petition '1'43 of 1996(53) Writ Petition 2137 of 1996
(26) Writ Petition 744 of 1996(54) Writ Petition 2623 of 1996
(27) Writ Petition 1294 of 1996(55) Writ Petition 2723 of 1996
(28) Writ Petition 1448 of 1996(56) Writ Petition 3573 of 1996
(57) Writ Petition 3982 of 1996(85) Writ Petition 7349 of 1996
(58) Writ Petition 3983 of 1996(86) Writ Petition 7515 of 1996
(59) Writ Petition 3984 of 1996(87) Writ Petition 8097 of 1996
(60) Writ Petition 4169 of 1996(88) Writ Petition 8652 of 1996
(61) Writ Petition 4170 of 1996(89) Writ Petition 8742 of 996
(62) Writ Petition 4171 of 1996(90) Writ Petition 8744 of 1996 (63.) Writ Petition 4172 of 1996(91) Writ Petition 11160 of 1996
(64) Writ Petition 4173 of 1996(92) Writ Petition 11161 of 1996
(65) Writ Petition 4587 of 1996(93) Writ Petition 11162 of 1996
(66) Writ Petition 4588 of 1996(94) Writ Petition 11163 of 1996
(67) Writ Petition 4852 of 1996(95) Writ Petition 11356 of 1996
(68) Writ Petition 4854 of 1996(96) Writ Petition 11368 of 1996
(69) Writ Petition 4856 of 1996(97) Writ Petition 11543 of 1996
(70) Writ Petition 5331 of 1996(98) Writ Petition 17176 of 1995
(71) Writ Petition 5802 of 1996(99) Writ Petition 14019 of 1995
(72) Writ Petition 6670 of 1996(100)Writ Petition 14021 of 1995
(73) Writ Petition 7126 of 1996(101)Writ Petition 14023 of 1995
(74) Writ Petition 7134 of 1996(102)Writ Petition 9301 of 1995
(75) Writ Petition 7141 of 1996(103)Writ Petition 9302 of 1995
(76) Writ Petition 7143 of 1996(104)Writ Petition 9303 of 1995
(77) Writ Petition 7176 of 1996(105)Writ Petition 9304 of 1995
(78) Writ Petition 7288 of 1996(106)Writ Petition 9305 of 1995
(79) Writ Petition 7343 of 1996(107)Writ Petition 9306 of 1995
(80) Writ. Petition 7344 of 1996(108)Writ Petition 9307 of 1995
(81) Writ Petition 7345 of 1996(109)Writ Petition 9308 of 1995
(82) Writ Petition 7346 of 1996(110)Writ Petition 9309 of 1995
(83) Writ Petition 7347 of 1996(111)Writ Petition 9310 of 1995
(84) Writ Petition 7348 of 1-996(112)Writ Petition 9311 of 1995
(113) Writ Petition 9312 of 1995(117) Writ Petition 14020 of 1995
(114) Writ Petition 10289 of 1995(118)Writ Petition 14022 of 1995
(115) Writ Petition 12917 of1995(119)Writ Petition 15246 of 1994
(116) Writ Petition 14018 of 1995(120) Writ Petition 15465 of 1994
2. In all the aforesaid writ petitions the petitioners were the students of various colleges. For the facility of understanding these writ petitions are divided into three categories. The first category covers the cases of those students who appeared in the B.Ed. Examination. Their writ petitions are at Serial Nos. l to 98.
3. The petitioners in the writ petitions of first category took admission in B.Ed. Class in the year, 1990 in different colleges for the academic session, 1990-91. The annual examination of the session was to be held in the year, 1992 by the University of the Punjab but for some reasons the examination was delayed and was held during the months of June to August, 1993. The petitioners submitted application forms for the admission to appear in the annual Examination of 1992 and claimed that they fulfilled all the conditions. However, the admission forms of students of the colleges namely, Punjab College of Education, Lahore; Punjab College of Education Rawalpindi; Punjab College of Education, Faisalabad; Garden College of Education, Lahore; Islamic College of Education, Faisalabad; Quaid-e-Azam College of Education, Lahore; Ibne Khuldoon College of Education Faisalabad; Rawalpindi College of Education, Rawalpindi and Lahore College of Education, Lahore, were initially returned by the Punjab University on the plea that the colleges in which the petitioners were studying were not granted affiliation by the University. However, their admission forms were accepted and these writ petitioners were provisionally allowed to appear in the examination.
Accordingly, all these writ petitioners appeared in the annual Examination of B.Ed. Of 1992, held in the year, 1993 but their result was not declared, therefore, they approached this Court through the aforesaid Constitutional petitions.
4. The second category is of those students who had taken admission in the Standard Law College, Sargodha. The writ petitions at Serial Nos. 102 to 118 have been filed by the students of this College who were studying in F.E.L. The . Writ petitions at Serial Nos.99 to 101 have been filed by the students of this college who were studying in L.L.B. Class.
5. All these students had appeared provisionally in F.E.L. And L.L.B. Examination held by the University of the Punjab. Their result has also not been declared by the respondent-University on the plea that the Standard Law College, Sargodha where they were studying was not granted affiliation by the University.
6. The third category from Serial Nos. 119 and 120 is of those students who had provisionally appeared in M.A. Mass Communication. They had taken admission in the National College of Mass Communication in Post Graduate classes during the Sessions 1991-93. As the National College of Mass Communication was not granted affiliation, the petitioners were also not allowed to appear in the examination by the University. They filed the writ petitions at Serial Nos. 119 to 120 and in pursuance of the Court order dated 26-12-1994, they were allowed to appear in the examination of Parts I and II of the Mass Communication provisionally. By virtue of another order dated 17-9-1995, passed by this Court, the petitioners were also allowed to appear provisionally in M.A. Part II Mass Communication Examination.
7. In all the aforesaid cases, the writ petitioners took admission in B.Ed., F.E.L., L.L.B. And M.A. Mass Communication Classes in the aforesaid colleges when the matter of affiliation was still under consideration of the respondent-University. It was known to the general public as well as the University Authorities that all these colleges had given admission to the students in the respective colleges and had started classes. The respondent-University by special or general order or a public notification did not inform the petitioners that they would not be allowed to appear in the University Examination unless the colleges were granted affiliation. Thus, the University and the concerned colleges by their conduct and representation induced the petitioners to take admission and led them to believe that they would be allowed to appear in the University Examination like other students of the affiliated colleges/institutions. Therefore, the students who had spent their precious time and money and also had completed the prescribed courses of study, should not be made to suffer because of the decision taken by the University subsequently or for any fault of the colleges.
8. The applications for affiliation of Punjab College of Education, Lahore, Rawalpindi and Faisalabad are still pending before the University Authorities. In some cases the result of some of the petitioners have been quashed after a long time by the Syndicate of the University. None of the affected students was given notice or opportunity of hearing to explain and defend himself. The applications for affiliation of the Garden College of Education, Lahore, Islamia College of Education, Faisalabad, Quaid-e-Azam College of Education, Lahore, Ibne Khuldoon College of Education, Faisalabad and Rawalpindi College of Education, Rawalpindi have been rejected after many years of holding examination. Similarly, after about three years the result of the students of these colleges was quashed by the Syndicate of the respondent-University. The Standard Law College, Sargodha, was initially given provincial affiliation by the University which is still intact and has not been withdrawn. Nevertheless the result of the students of this college who also are the petitioners before me have not been declared.
9. In the case of National College of Mass-Communication, the affiliation was finally refused to the college in the year, 1995 vide memorandum dated 18-2-1995, issued by the University to the college. Simultaneously, the result of the petitioners who had appeared in M.A. Mass Communication Part I & II Examination of 1991 was quashed. This action was taken against the students without any notice and affording opportunity to them. They were allowed to appear in the examination at a time when the matter of affiliation was not finally decided. Most of the petitioners appeared in the examination provisionally under the order of the Court.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the petitioners were discriminated inasmuch as the students of some other colleges, which were also not given affiliation by the respondent University, were allowed to appear in the examination provisionally and their result was also declared by the University. He has referred to letter issued by the University of Punjab on 10-7-1991 to the Principal, Standard Law College, Sargodha and letter dated 22-11-1992 addressed to the Principal, Urdu Law College, Lahore showing that the students of these colleges were allowed to appear in the examination and their result was also declared by the University although the matter of affiliation of these colleges had not by then been finally decided by the University.
10-A. The University authorities ought to have decided the matter of affiliation of the Colleges in question before admission was sought by the petitioners in the Colleges or in any case prior to submitting admission forms for appearing in the examinations or else the students should have been warned not to get admission in these colleges. Since, this was not done by the University, they are estopped by their conduct and representation to withhold their result or to quash the same.
Reference in this regard is made to two reported judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Federation of Pakistan Ch. Muhammad Aslam (1986 SCM R 916) and Pakistan v.
Salahuddin (PLD 1991 SC 546). In the latter judgment it was observed as follows:---------- "The contention of the learned Deputy Attorney-General that the doctrine of promissory estoppel does not extend to legislative, executive sovereign functions of the State is correct to the extent that it does not indeed extend to legislative and sovereign functions, but executive actions are not excluded from the operation of the doctrine."
The orders passed by the Syndicate of the University of the Punjab, Lahore quashing the results of some of the petitioners are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioners in accordance with law.
No order as to costs