1. CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.-- I intend to decide the following writ petition by one consolidated judgments having similar facts and law:--
(1) W.P. 5537/2000.
(2) W.P. 5684/2000.
(3) W.P. 9883/2000.
(4) W.P. 13934/2000.
(5) W.P. 13933/2000.
(6) W.P. 9507/2000.
(7) W.P. 9709/2000.
(8) W.P. 9718/2000.
(9) W.P. 9794/2000.
(10) W.P. 9795/2000.
(11) W.P. 11157/2000.
(12) W.P. 9873/2000.
(13) W.P. 11037/2000.
(14) W.P. 11036/2000.
(15) W.P. 9243/2000.
(16) W.P. 8570/2000.
(17) W.P. 8262/2000.
2. W.P. 7959/2000.
3. W.P. 7730/2000.
4. W.P. 13935/2000.
5. W.P. 13936/2000.
6. W.P. 13937/2000.
7. W.P. 13938/2000.
8. W.P. 13939/2000.
9. W.P. 13940/2000.
10. W.P. 13941/2000.
11. W.P. 16872/2000.
12. W.P. 11078/2000.
13. W.P. 21392/2000.
14. 20 The brief facts out of which the, present writ petitions arise are that the competent authority of the respondents has formulated policy regarding non-WAPDA Employees of the students in order to improve the financial position of the Institutions of WAPDA on 18.1.1990. The petitioners' daughters/sons got admissions in the respective Institutions of the respondents i.e. WAPDA Boys High School Shalamar 'Town, Lahore and WAPDA Girls High School Shalamar Town, Lahore. By efflux of time all the petitioners' children were promoted in the higher classes respectively. Respondents formulated Fresh Admission Policy qua the non-WAPDA student on 29.3.2000 and directed the Principal' of the Institutions that admission of non WAPDA children be stopped forthwith in all WAPDA Institutions, except the classes 8th and 9th to complete the academic session. The Headmistress and Headmaster of the classes informed the parents of the children on 29.3.2000 with the direction to arrange -admission of their children in other schools of the Institutions from the next session i.e. After 31.3.2000.
3. The learned counsel of 'the petitioners submit that petitioners ' children got the admission on the basis of the policy-dated 18.1.1990 and vested right has accrued to the petitioners and their children. Respondents have no authority to take the aforesaid right of the petitioners through office order retrospectively. They further submit that principle of locus poenitentiae is attracted in favour of the petitioners. They further submit that the impugned office order is very harsh and .Un- reasonable- and respondents, have to pass the office order dated 23.4.1988 in parental jurisdiction to save the career of the children. They further submits that they must exercise their discretion fairly and justly. In support of their contentions they relied upon the following judgments:-- PLD 1991 S.C. 14 Chairman Regional Transport Authority vs. Pakistan Mutual Insurance Company.
15. NLR 1999 Civil 563.
16. Gel Caps Vs. Federation of Pakistan. 1995 MLD 15 M/s. Presson Manufacturing Ltd. Vs. Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources.
17. 1991 MLD 1605.
18. Muhammad Bala/ Vs. The Principal National College Pakistan Engineering Faisalabad.
19. PLD'1969 S.C. 407.
20. Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance Vs. Muhammad Hamayat Ullah Farooqi.
21. PLD 1964 S.C. 503.
22. Lt, Col. G. L. Battachary Vs. The State. 1992 SCMR 1652.
23. M/s, Army Welfare Sugar Mills Vs. Federation of Pakistan.
24. 1997 SCMR 15.
25. Chairman Selection Committee/Principal King Adwerd Medical College Vs. Waseem Zameer Ahmad.
4. The learned counsel of the respondent submit that respondents formulated Policy on 23.4.1988 with the following condition:-- "C. Educational Institutions will be allocated a budget to the Education Directorate keeping in view the number of students/staff in the Schools/Colleges. A proper account of all income and expenditure will be kept by cash institution which will be mentioned by Education Directorate."
26. The competent authority subsequently modified the same vide Policy letter dated 18.1.1990 Thereafter the same was modified by the competent authority through policy letter dated 16.4.1999.
27. The condition was imposed by the competent authority to the extent that admission of children of non-WAPDA Employees/outsiders would be restricted to 5 per cent provided 15 per cent seats are available in a class as laid down in office order dated 23.4.1998. On the basis of the aforesaid notification the learned counsel of the respondents submit that the Institutions restricted to a very limited number of non-WAPDA Employees children. The intimation was conveyed to the parents of the children as far back as 29.3.2000. They further submit that classes for the next academic year in every Educational Institution start from first week of April and admission in such Institutions continued upto September, 2000 but the petitioners did not try to get their children by admitted in other Institutions. They further submit that WAPDA authorities are competent to govern and control the admission in their Institutions. The Institutions were established basically for the children of the employees of the WAPDA. WAPDA has to afford financial aid to the Institutions in question, therefore, non-WAPDA employees cannot acquire any right of such concession. It was previously provided to them against restricted number of seats. They further submit that the petitioners children have no vested right to continue their education in the Institutions In question. Non-WAPDA Employees' children belonging to classes 9th and 10th were granted permission to continue their studies, which is not in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution as the reasonable classification is permissible in the eyes of law. They further submit that in case the office letter is set aside then the respondents have to face the administrative difficulties, In support of their contentions they relied upon Khurram Pervaiz Vs. University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore (1997 SCMR 1466).
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself. It is admitted fact that petitioners' children got admission in the Institutions in question. On the basis of the policy letters of the respondents dated 18.1.1990, 23.4.1998, 16.4.1999, children of the petitioners were also promoted in the higher classes respectively. Respondents formulated fresh 'admission policy qua the non-WAPDA Employees' children on 29.3.2000 and directed the Principles of the Institutions that admission to non-WARDA.
28. Children be stopped forthwith in all WAPDA Educational Institutions except students of 8th and 9th classes to complete the session. Most of the petitioners filed writ petitions and respondents were directed to allow petitioners' children to continue their education provisionally subject to the payment of dues to respondents in accordance with law. The principle of Promissory Estoppel is attracted in the given circumstances and it is well-known principle that vested right once accrued cannot be taken away by notification retrospectively as is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- PLD 1991 S.C. 546 Salahuddin's case 1992 SCMR 1652 Army Welfare's case 1996 SCMR Collector Customs and Central Excise Peshawar Vs. M/s. Raees Khan Ltd.
29. The principle of Locus Poenitentiae is also attracted in the given circumstances of the case as is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in PLD 1969 S.C. 407 Pakistan through Secretary Vs. Muhammad Hamayatullah Farooqi and PLJ 1996 S.C. (CS) 405 Director Social Welfare NWFP Vs. Saad Ullah Khan. It is settled proposition of law that office order has prospective effect and not retrospective effect. It is settled proposition of law that the relief granted by this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution must be in relation to his grievance and not to the grievance of any third person as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ch. Jalal-ud-Din Vs. Settlement Commissioner, Lahore (1968 SCMR 995).
6. In view of what has been discussed above the writ petitions ' are accepted to the extent of the only petitioners own children to avoid the administrative problems to the respondents. The writ petitions which are filed by the petitioners over and over their children, to that extent the writ petitions are dismissed. It is pertinent to mention here that specific order is passed in W.P. No. 5684/2000 and the writ petition 'over and above the petitioners' children was dismissed vide order .Dated 15.5.2000 as per principle laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments: PLD 1973 Lahore 500.
30. Anjuman Araiman and 5 others case.
31. 1988 CLC Abdul Qadoos Bari's case.
32. PLD 1989 Lahore 26.
33. Ltd. Col. Nafees-ud-Din Ansari's case.
34. The wilt petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid observations.