1. ' GHULAM RABBANI, J.--- Through this petition petitioner has made the following prayer:-
(a) Declaring and directing the respondent to allow Admission 2002 to the petitioner in B.A.
2. (Honours) in English and allow the petitioner to deposit the admission fee and other charges and attend the classes and get study in current session in the University of Karachi. In the alternate the directions may be given to the respondent to the effect that the petitioner may be allowed to be admitted in B.Sc. (Honours) in Physics as the petitioner is eligible to get admission in any of the above subjects in view of the marks obtained by her and according to the merit;
(b) declare that the procedure of admission contained in Annexure P/II to the petitioner where by the rejection of Admission Form is provided is ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan as well as the Karachi University Act, 1972 and the said procedure has no legal effect;
(c) declare that the petitioner is entitled for admission in University of Karachi according to the merits in the subjects applied for;
(d) the respondent tq allow, the petitioner to attend the classes of B.A. (Honours) in English or in alternate classes of B.Sc. (Honours) Physics in the current session; .
(e) cost of petition.
3. (0 any other relief(s) which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of this case.
4. ' It is the . Case of petitioner that after passing her Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination 2001 in Grade 'A' securing 70.18 per cent. Marks in Pre-Engineering Group. She obtained two Admission Forms from the notified Bank and submitted the same for admission i,e, one for B.A.
5. (Honours) in English in the faculty of Arts and other for B.Sc. In the Faculty of Science showing her preferential choice for the subject of English in B.A. Honours and Physics in the first and second mentioned faculties respectively. It is stated by petitioner that merit list of eligible candidates who were allowed admission indicated that the admission in respect of subject of English was closed at 67.45 per cent. And in respect of subject of Physics at 60.91 per cent. But to her astonishments her name did not appear in the said list; as such, she through her father approached concerned authorities including Chairman/Director, Admission Committee, the Vice-Chancellor and the Chancellor of University so also she approached the Provincial Ombudsman but she did not get relief and that she was only informed orally that her request for admission was turned down without assigning any cogent reason.
6. ' Grievance of the petitioner, now, is that she was deprived of her right of getting education and her future career was spoiled by illegal acts of respondent.
7. 'Respondent has filed comments through its Registrar wherein it is stated that in terms of clause 4.
8. Of Procedure of Admission no student is allowed to submit more than one form for admission on merit and since petitioner submitted two forms in violation of said procedure admission was declined to her and that by doing so respondent acted strictly in accordance with its Rules and that neither the procedure of admission was violated nor the forms were rejected without lawful authority. It has been stated that the Academic Council was empowered to frame the Admission Policy, which was followed in strict sense.
9. ' We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent and learned Additional Advocate- General, Sindh and with their assistance, we have examined the material placed before us.
10. ' Mr. Khalid Javed learned counsel for petitioner argued that the Admission Policy prepared by Academic Council as per admission of respondent in its parawise comments, required approval of syndicate under section 22 and other provision of University of Karachi Act, 1972 to make it workable and since Syndicate of University had not accorded its approval to the said policy so also the procedure laid down therein, was not in accordance with the provisions of University Act it was not a valid document; therefore, any prohibition put under this policy was of no legal consequence.
11. He referred to paragraph 4 of Procedure for Admissions and argued that it is alleged that the forms of petitioner were rejected under said paragraph, however, the procedure of policy being of no legal consequence, the said paragraph could not have been put into operation. Mr. Khalid Javed further argued that, even otherwise, the said paragraph did neither convey clearly the intentions of its maker nor it gave clear import that prohibition on submitting two forms related to all Departments of both faculties or for any one of such departments as the language used in its first part that "a student is not allowed to submit more than one admission form for departments shown in Table 1-A" could not, in the present set-up, be considered to be providing thorough meaning. He elaborated that in case it was the intention of policy-maker to prohibit the student from submitting more than one admission form seeking admission to more than one of faculties inclusive of their all departments shown in Table 1-A, clear language ought to have been used or, the least, insertion of the words "any or all" was essentially necessary to manifest the true will of policy makeRs. Similarly, he argued that, other words used in the latter portion of the said paragraph viz. "if any candidate was found submitting more than one form all of his/her forms would be cancelled", too, did not speak clearly of such forms for one faculty/department or for all the department in both faculties to enable a student fully grasp or understand the will of policy makers; therefore, young student like petitioner with little knowledge having passed intermediate examination, could not be expected to understand the full import of the language. He submitted that the Bank/Official who readily issued more than one form to petitioner also did not forewarn or extend any guidance that the use of two forms for admission runs counter to the will of policy maker or submission for more than one form or two different departments would result in their rejection. Mr. Khalid expressed that had such facility/guidance been provided, petitioner would not have submitted two forms for admission. Mr. Khalid, next, argued that in any event petitioner, a girl of tender age, could only be considered to have submitted admission forms with bona fide intentions and under honest yet mistaken belief as she had absolutely no malice on her part and was willing and ready not to press his admission on the basis of two forms and one of her forms be treated as withdrawn at the option of respondent. For acceptance. Lastly, he argued that the rejection of forms of petitioner was arbitrary, capricious and was aimed at to discourage and deprive basic 'right of education of student like the petitioner who was brilliant enough securing 70.5 of marks i,e, more than every student who were granted admission. Mr. Khalid Javed contended that in case of petitioner her rights as guaranteed in Articles 4, 18, 22 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan were violated.
12. ' Mr. Nadeem Azhar, learned counsel for the respondent, in his arguments repelled the above contentions and stated that the action of rejection of two forms of petitioner was rightly taken by respondents within terms of procedure of policy framed legally and lawfully.
13. ' Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Khan, learned Assistant Advocate-General did not oppose the admission of petitioner and stated that she filed two forms for two Faculties/Departments without any malicious intention.
14. ' From above discussion it is quite apparent that the plea of petitioner that she secured A Grade with 70.18 per cent. Marks by passing High Secondary School Certificate Examination, 2001 in Pre- engineering Group, has gone unchallenged so also it has gone unchallenged that petitioner secured more percentage than all the students who were aw&rded admission to Faculties/Departments' in question. Petitioner has filed her testimonial in support of her contentions. It is also not the case of respondent that petitioner having passed higher secondary school certificate in Pre-engineering Group was not eligible to admission to any of the Faculties/Departments for which she submitted admission forms. Learned counsel for petitioner, beside taking a plea that petitioner was deprived of her basic right of education by refusal of admission and her educational career was spoiled, urged that such action of respondent under the garb of procedure for admission was illegal and unlawful being violative of Constitutional guarantee as provided in Articles 4, 18, 22 and 25 of the Constitution. He also alternately urged that the relevant paragraph 4 of the procedure of admission is not thoroughly clear to enable young student like petitioner with little knowledge to understand the full import of its language. Besides, on the same assumption, he pleaded that petitioner fell prey to honest yet mistaken belief and there was no element of malice on the part of petitioner. Such an alternate plea taken by learned counsel for petitioner cannot be outrightly ignored considering it to be without any substance.
15. Learned Additional Advocate-General has, too, not opposed the request of petitioner for admission in any of two faculties.
16. ' Considering the above facts and circumstances, we admitted this petition to regular hearing and allowed the same in terms of clause "c" only of the prayer clause alongwith listed application by our short order dated 25-4-2002 and these are the reasons for the same.