' The facts of the case are that the petitioner having been declared successful in the P. Sc.
(Supplementary Examination) on 4-1-1977, submitted his application for admission to Third Year Class of the Government College, Lahore, on 11-1-1977. According to the record produced in the Court by an Official of the College, he was interviewed on 21-1-77 but was refused admission in the college. Thereafter the Minister for Education, Government of Punjab, was approached for admission purposes who directed the Principal of the College to admit the petitioner in the Third Year Class as he had applied for admission within time i,e,, within fifteen days of the announcement of his result under Regulation No, 4, Chapter XI of the Calendar of the University of thePunjab, Vol. I, page 224. He was consequently admitted to the college on 7-2-1977. He was assigned Roll No, 407 and according to the Attendance Register produced in the Court he attended the class regularly till the college was closed on account of vacation. It is admitted by the Official of the College present in the Court that all the necessary dues after admission were deposited by the petitioner.
2. Thereafter, the Principal of the College made reference to the University of the Punjab, respondent No, 1, for condoning the delay in admitting the petitioner to Third Year Class beyond the period of fifteen days. At this the father of the petitioner addressed a letter to the Registrar, University of the Punjab, stating that in fact there was no occasion for condoning the delay in admitting the petitioner as he had applied within time after the announcement of his result.
According to him, since the order of the Principal, dated 21-1-1977, refusing admission to the petitioner was reversed by the Minister for Education, therefore, the admission granted to the petitioner should be deemed to have been granted with effect from the same date and not from 7- 2-1977. Mr. Muhammad Nasir Butt, Asstt. Registrar of the University after having received the letter from the father of the petitioner made reference to the Principal of the College eliciting information as to whether the petitioner had applied for admission to Third Year Class within time ; whether he was interviewed on 21-1-1977 and was refused admission ; and whether the Provincial Education Minister had directed him to admit the petitioner to Third Year Class. This reference was addressed to the Principal on 26./1977 and according to the relevant record no reply thereto has been received so far.
3. The order which has been impugned in the present case was actually passed by the Assistant Registrar, respondent No, 2, on 10.2-1977 as the original record in his possession shows much before the reference was made to the Principal, Government College, on 26-2-1977. The impugned order states that since the petitioner did not seek admission within fifteen days of the announcement of his result, therefore, his admission to Third Year Class cannot be confirmed. This order was, however, conveyed to the petitioner by the Principal on' 30-5.1977 and it was on the receipt thereof that the petitioner came to know about that. It is admitted by the Assistant Registrar, who is present In the Court that at the time when he passed the Impugned order the fact that the Minister for Education had directed the Principal for admission of the petitioner to Third Year Class was not within his knowledge nor was it brought to his notice by the petitioner or by the Principal. Re submits that if this fact had been brought to his notice A then he would not have passed the impugned order. As a matter of fact, he admits that in . The presence of the order passed by the Minister for Education his order dated 10-2-1977 being without jurisdiction is ineffective.
' Even otherwise, it is clear that the aforesaid order of, the Assistant Registrar is not based on true facts. The above discussion would show, as admitted by the representative of the Principal, Government College, that the petitioner submitted his application for admission within fifteen days of the announcement of his result. That being so, the order passed by the Assistant Registrar being contrary to the facts .Available on record cannot be maintained.
4. Now remains the question as to what is the real import of Regulation No, 4, Chapter XI of the University Calendar, Volume I, with regard to late admission to the Colleges, Regulation No, 1 lays down that no one shill be admitted to. a college/university attached department after the expiry of one month from the last date prescribed for admission by the University ; provided that a late fee of Rs, 15 shall be paid to .The University up to the 15th day and of Rs, 20 after the 15th day of the permissible period. It is further provided that no credit shall be given of holidays either at the end of the month or in the intervening period. Regulation No, 2 provides that any one who is otherwise eligible may be granted late admission up to the limit of time prescribed in Regulation No,
1. As discussed above, Regulation No, 4 of the said Chapter provides that a candidate whose result is published late by the University/a Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, or a candidate who seeks admission after the result of the Supplementary Examination of the aforesaid institutions is declared may be admitted without late fee within fifteen working days of the date on which his result is. Published irrespective of the limit of time prescribed in Regulation No, 1.
5. The Assistant Registrar has contended that Regulation No, 4 being an independent provision and the petitioner having not been admitted within fifteen days -of the declaration of his result, the period prescribed by the said regulation, cannot be admitted to a higher class unless delay with regard to his admission is condoned.
I am afraid, this contention is without any force. A bare reading of the Regulations 1 to 4 under Chapter XI of the Calendar shows that they cannot be read in isolation of each other. They have to be read together and particularly Regulation No, 4 is to be read in conjunction with Regulation No, 1.
Regulation No, 1 appears to be applicable to the candidates who have passed their annual examination while Regulation No, 4 applies to the students whose results are published late or who seek admission after the result of Supplementary Examination. But the principle with regard to late admission as laid down in Regulation No, 1 will, however, also be applicable to the students whose result is published late or who see admission after the result of the Supplementary Examination.
Regulation No, 4 does not say anything about a candidate who is not admitted within fifteen days of the declaration of his result of the Supplementary Examination or whose result is published late.
The only provision as made in the said regulation is that such a candidate may be admitted without late tee within fifteen working days of the date on which his result is published. That does not mean that if a student is not admitted within fifteen working days then he would be debarred of being admitted later on or would not be admitted unless the delay for his admission as such is condoned. When a candidate who is covered by Regulation No, I can be admitted within fifteen days, after the expiry of period of one month prescribed for his admission on payment of Rs, 15 to the University as late fee and on payment of Rs, 20 after the 15th day of the permissible period. It is really strange as to why a candidate cannot be admitted within next fifteen days after the expiry of the period of fifteen working days as prescribed in Regulation No, 4 on payment of Rs, 15 or after the fifteenth day of such period on payment of Rs, 20 to the University.
6. Regulation No, 4 clearly lays down that if a candidate is admitted within fifteen working days of the date on which his result is published then he will not be charged any late fee on his admission.
This regulation, as discussed above, is silent as to what will happen to a candidate who is not admitted within the aforesaid fifteen working days. The interpretation as put on this regulation by the Assistant Registrar, if accepted, would cause great inconvenience to the candidates. Since Regulation No, 4 is silent with regard to admission on payment of late fee, therefore, the condition as laid down with regard to that in Regulation No, 1 would be applicable to the students who are covered by Regulation No, 4, as both the said regulations cannot be read in isolation of each other.
This view gain support from Regulation No 6 providing that it will be the responsibility of the student himself to complete the lectures prescribed by the relevant regulations and his late admission shall not be entertained as an excuse too condoning the deficiency in lectures. This being the position a candidate who is covered by Regulation No, 4 cannot be refused admission on payment of late fee within the period prescribed by Regulation No, 1.
7. In the present case, as mentioned above, the result of the petitioner was declared on 4-1-1977. He applied for admission on 11-1-1977 but was refused to be admitted on 21-1-1977. It has been argued that the order of the Minister for Education, dated 4-2-1977, would operate retrospectively ; meaning thereby that the admission granted to the petitioner on 7-2-1977 would be deemed to have been so granted on 21-1-1977 when initially he was refused admission. I am sorry, I cannot agree with this contention being devoid of force. The petitioner having been refused admission on 21-1-1977 chapter of his admission within fifteen days without late fee was closed. However, as found above, he is liable to be admitted within fifteen days on payment of Rs, 15 to the University after the expiry of one month from the last date prescribed for admission purposes under Regulation No,
1. As such, he can be admitted to the higher class on payment of Rs, 15 as late fee and question of condonation of delay in his admission would, therefore, not arise. A candidate who is admitted on payment of late fee cannot claim as of right condonation of the deficiency in his lectures as provided by Regulation No, 6 of the aforesaid Chapter. It is his responsibility to see to this aspect of the matter. In the given circumstances he may or may not seek admission on payment of 13 to fee. However, if in spite of this handicap he seeks admission on payment of late fee the same cannot be refused. In the circumstances the petitioner having already been admitted on 7th of February, 1977 would be deemed to have been duly admitted as such to the higher class on payment of Rs, 15 only as late fee to the University.
8. In view of the above the impugned order dated 10.2-1977 being ineffective and without lawful authority is hereby set aside and the petition is accepted, without any order as to costs, in the terms stated above.