SAVED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J. -- Through this judgment W.P. No. 11510/98, W.P. No. 11511/98 and W.P. No. 11736/98 which have somewhat similar facts and grounds of challenge are being disposed of .As common question of law is involved in these petitions.
2. In pursuance of an advertisement, issued by the Registrar, Baha- ud-Din Zikriya University, Multan inviting applications for various courses/classes of study for the year, 1998-99, published in daily "Nawa-e-Waqt" dated 25.10.1998, the petitioner submitted his application form for admission in B.Sc., Civil Engineering. The case of the petitioner is that he has been denied the admission for the simple reason that he does not fulfil the condition of age as he is above the age of 24 years. This petition has been filed that the petitioner has been wrongly denied the admission by the respondent-University. At the pre-admission stage, the comments were called from the University which have been submitted.
3. In support of this petition learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the notice published in daily "Nawa-e-Waqt", there was no mention of age limit and that in any case paragraph No. 4 of the Admission Regulation (Prospectus for the year, 1998-99) is liable to be struck down being violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is contended that no age limit can he prescribed for acquiring education and knowledge and that there is no age limit fixed by the other Universities of the Province for admission and thus the petitioner cannot be denied the admission on a ground which runs counter to the Equality Clause. Learned counsel has referred to few writ petitions, entertained by this Court in which provisional admission was granted to the petitioners and has also referred Federation of Pakistan through Secy., Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs v. The Public-At-Large (PLD 1991 SC 459), Ch. Manzoor Elahi v. Federation of Pakistan etc. (PLD 1975 SC 66), Yahya Bakhtiar, Advocate v. The State through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Govt. Of Pakistan, Islamabad etc. (NLR 1980 Crl. Quetta 815), Miss Khola Jaheen and 2 others v. Government of N.W.F.P. Through Secy. Health Department, Peshawar and 5 others (PLD 1976 Peshawar 97), Mussarat Uzma Usmani and another v. Government of Punjab through Secy. Health, Lahore and another (PLD 1987 Lahore 178), Riaz-ul-Had -v. Selection Committee Constituted for Admission to Bolan. Medical College through Secy. Principal Bolan Medical College, Quetta and 6 others (1997 SCMR 1845), Muhammad Sharif and another v. Nadeem Shahid and others (1998 SCMR 804), Pir Bakhsh v. The Chairman, Allotment Committee and others (PLD 1987 SC 145), Baluchistan Bar Association through President Baluchistan Bar Association and others v.
Government of Baluchistan through the Chief Secy. Baluchistan and others (PLD 1991 Quetta 7).
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-University contends that the Prospectus, issued by the University, did provide in clear terms the maximum age limit of 24 years of admission. It is contended that admission in the University is regulated by the Regulations framed under the Statute i.e. Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University Act, 1975 (Act No. III of 1975) which enables and empowers the University to lay down the criteria and conditions for admissions. It is further contended that there is no question of regulation being ultra vires of any provision of the constitution or violation of equality clause as the age limit has been prescribed for all and not for the petitioner alone. He has relied upon Ahmed All v. Province of Sindh (1986 MLD 1777).
5. In the advertisement, published in daily Nawa-e-Waqt on 25.10.1998, clear reference to the prospectus, application forms and regulation for admission was made. The petitioner applied for admission in pursuance of the regulations framed by the University.
6. Paragraph No. 4 of the Admission Regulations published in the Prospectus is as follows:- "4. A candidate must not have attained the age given below on the last date fixed for receipt of applications for admission to various disciplines:-
(i) B.Sc. Engineering/BBA/BCS/B.Sc. (Hons.) Agriculture. 24 years.
(ii) B.Sc. Engineering/B,Pharmacy (B.Sc. Degree Holders)26 years.
According to his own showing the petitioner is above the age prescribed for admission.
7. The Prospectus and the admission regulation have backing of statutory provision i.e. Section 32 of Act No. 111 of 1975 which empowers the University to formulate a policy for admission and conditions for the same. Prescribing an age limit for admission in the University is one of the conditions for regulating the admission. It has a rationale behind it for an educational institution cannot admit all the applicants who secure the marks prescribed for the purpose and have necessarily to screen the applicant on some reasonable basis. The object of prescribing the qualifications and laying down criteria for admission was considered and highlighted by the Supreme Court of India in R: Chitralekha v. State of Mysore and others (AIR 1964 SC. 1823) in which at page 1830 it was observed that:- "The Academic Council shall have the power to prescribe. The conditions for admission of students to the University' and, in exercise of its power, it has pescribed the percentage of marks which a student shall obtain for getting admission in medical or engineering colleges. The orders of the Government do not contravene the minimum qualifications prescribed by the University. The Government runs most of the medical and engineering colleges. Excluding the State aided colleges for a moment, the position is as follows: The Colleges run by the Government, having regard to financial commitments and other relevant considerations can only admit a specific number of students to the said College. They cannot obviously admit all the applicants who have secured the marks prescribed by the University. It has necessarily to screen the applicants on some reasonable basis." (underlined by me for emphasis)
It was thus held that the Government has power to prescribe a machinery and the criteria for admission of qualified students to the medical and engineering colleges run by the Government.
8. The concept of fixation of age limit is not new for the educational institutions, it is rather all over applied. In England, it is known as "Cmpulsory School Age" which means an age between 5 and 16 years and a person must he deemed to he of "Compulsory School Age" if he has attained the age of 5 and has not attained that of 16. Reference may he made to Halshury's Law of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 15, Paragrap No. 24 at page 20.
9. While dealing with "Equality Clause "Thomas M. Cooley in his hook the General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America, 4th Edition Revised and Enlarged in 1994 comments as follows:- "The Courts have held that where a public school system has been established it would he a violation of that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," to make any distinction, racial or otherwise; as to the pupils who may he admitted to such schools, except such as may he founded on age or previous training, and that all such laws must he general in their nature."
Thus, the University has not done anything unusual or unique in prescribing the age limit for admission.
10. The point, however, raised by the learned counsel, whether such a regulation is contrary to the Equality Clause i.e. Art. 25 of the Constitution, finds answer in the judgments rendered by our Supreme Court as well. In I. A. Shenvani v. Government of Pakistan (1991 SCMR 1041) after considering a large number of judgments and principles deduceable therefrom laid down, inter alia, at page 1086 that:- "That different laws can validly be enacted for different sexes, persons of different age group, group of persons having different financial standing and persons accused of heinous crimes."
11. The principle laid down has ever since been followed and reiterated in number of judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court such as Government of Baluchistan v. Azizullah Menton and others. (FLD 1993 SC 341) and the latest pronouncement by their lordships in Mehram A.I v. Federation of'
Pakistan and others (PLD 1998 SC 1445). In Mehram Ali's case it was reiterated at page. 1478 that different laws can validly he made for persons of different age groups.
12. The prescription of a maximum age for admission into a particular class cannot he regarded as unreasonable or discriminatory as a classification on the basis of age grouping is permissible to include or exclude the persons of a particular age. The fixation of age group for admission to the class by the respondent-University does have rational basis and cannot he held as discriminatory or violative of Art. 25 of the Constitution.
13. The fixation of a cut off data is also common in matters of employment, public service-public offices elections etc. And is not a concept alien to the law. In Dr. Anti Lal Bhat v. Stale of Rajasthan and others (AIR 1997 SC 2964), it was observed that fixation of the cut off date for determining the maximum or minimum age required for a post is in the discretion of the Rule Making Authority or the employer as the case may be. As soon as a cut off date is fixed, there will be some persons who fall on the right side of the cut off date and some persons who fall on the wrong side of the cut off date. That does not make the cut off date per se arbitrary unless it is wholly unreasonable.
14. Since the age fixed is meant for and is applicable to all seeking admission to the University, it can neither he regarded as discriminatory nor unreasonable, as some age limit had to he fixed for the purpose of admission. The contention of the learned counsel thus is not sustainable.
15. The other contention of the learned counsel that the age limit has not been prescribed by the other Universities of the Province is also not tenable. Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University, Multan is creation of Act No. III of 1975. It has its own existence and entity. It is a body corporate having perpetual succession and seal, established at Multan. By Section 5 of the Act, the University is conferred power to exercise the same eiwh in the territorial limits of Multan and D.G. Khan Division.
The Act enables the University to lay down its own regulations for admission and for allied purposes. Each University has its own charter and independent existence, and has a power to lay down a criteria for admission to its classes and faculties. The regulations made by it cannot he regarded as discriminatory or violative of Art. 25 of the Constitution, simply for the reason that in other parts of the Province/Country the other Universities have no such regulations fixing the age for admission. It is settled law that different laws can be made for different parts of the Country according to the local conditions and circumstances. A statement of law made in Yick Wo v.
Hopkins (118 US 356) was adopted and approved by a Full Bench of West Pakistan High Court in Malik Muhammad UsMan v. The State etc. (PLD 1965 (W.P.) Lahore 229) that:- "The guarantee of the equal protection does not prevent the State from applying different laws or different system of judicature to different parts or local sub-divisions of the country according to local circumstances...."
The same principle was followed in Naseem Mahmood v. Principal King Edward Medical College, Lahore (PLD 1965 (W.P.) Lahore 272) when learned Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the matter of admission to the Medical College observed as follows:- "It will he seen, therefore, that reasonable classification, having relation to the object of the legislation in question, does not offend against the equality clause and is not regarded as depriving the citizens of equal protection of the laws. Now, in the present case the various Medical Colleges, with which we are dealing, are situated in certain important towns of the Province of West Pakistan, and those towns are, by reason of their geographical location and historical association, centres of learning and seats of administration for certain well-defined regions of the Province. It is reasonable to provide that the College situated in these towns shall cater primarily for the needs of students residing in the regions concerned. In other words, the scheme of Tagged Areas is nothing more than a scheme of regional classification intended to make the best use of educational facilities available in the regions concerned by ensuring that students residing in these regions will be given a certain preference over those who do not reside in the area. The discrimination involved is not arbitrary or unrelated to the object underlying the scheme."
16. Another grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that in the previous year the persons of higher age had been given admission by the University. That may he so in view of the then existing regulations. The same cannot furnish a precedent as the petitioner has sought admission for the Session 1998-99 for which purpose the regulations prevailing for the relevant session is attracted and applicable. It may be noted that all laws which are enacted have to he enforced with effect from sometime and date. No one can have legitimate grievance to say that since it was not in force in the past, it shall not he made applicable to a given situation or a person after the date of its enforcement. There cannot he any clog on a law making body to enact, amend or alter a law.
17. So far as the admission to educational institution is concerned, eligibility of the candidate seeking admission is determinable by the Prospectus for the said current academic year. In Ahmed Ali's case (supra) while dealing with the admission in LMC Jam Shoro, the learned Division Bench observed as follows:- "Petitioner's right for admission in the college, in our opinion, was to he-decided. On the basis of the prospectus for the year 1984-85 and not by the prospectus for the year 1983-84. The petitioner's right to admission was to be governed by the policy prescribed by the prospectus for the year 1984-85 as it existed for 1984-85. We are of the opinion that the construction on the rules suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner by itself is not sufficient for warranting this Court to interfere with the decision of the respondents."
The petitioner who had applied for admission for the session 1998-99 is governed by the rules and regulations prescribed by the Prospectus for this session and not by any other.
18. I have considered the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In Federation of Pakistan's case (supra), the issue involved was. As to the repugnancy of Members of National Assembly (Exemption from Preventive Detention and Personal Appearance) Ordinance
(IX) of 1963, in which Shariat Appellate Bench ordered to carry out certain amendments in the Ordinance. This case has no application whatsoever to the issue involved in the present case.
19. In the cases of Ch. Manzoor Dahl, Yahya Bakhtiar, Miss Musarrat Uzma Usmani, Baluchistan Bar Association through the President Bar Association (supra) a general principle of equality clause was discussed. All these cases have altogether different facts and circumstances and have no application to the present case. The case of Muhammad Sharif (supra) pertains to appointment of Guardian ad item and has thus no application whatsoever to this case, likewise, the case of Pir Bakhsh (supra) pertains to the allotment of the evacuee property by the Rehabilitation Authority and has totally different context. However, in the case of Miss Khola Jaheen (supra) the admission to Medical College was the point in issue and it was held that the admission is disregard of merit and criteria laid down in the prospectus was illegal and the petition was accepted. This case indeed supports the proposition that the Prospectus issued by the College/University regulates the admission to the said institution. It does not support the case of the petitioner. Riaz-ul-Haq case (supra) pertains to the admission in MBBS class against a reserved seat in which the petitioner succeeded to establish that he was entitled to admission in pursuance of the regulation mentioned in the Prospectus and he was held to he entitled to get admission in the college. Since all these precedents had arisen in different context and had different import, they ,do not advance the case of the petitioner.
20. Finding no force in these petitions, the same are dismissed leaving the parties to hear their own costs.