Article 199 The petitioner's educational institution challenged the applicant's decision to refuse admission to the university's third semester of biochemistry on the basis that it was up to the students to pursue a program in biochemistry, according to the university prospectus. Choose to expand The biotechnology and authorities did not have the authority to order a particular course whereby a student could demonstrate a dispute raised by the university authorities on the process or decision of the faculty meeting held on 22-8 2007. Accordingly, the right of the students to choose MC was controlled by limiting the number of students in the biochemistry P. Biotechnology to fifteen (15) per merit and the applicant on the basis of his merit. Skive was placed in a biotechnology course that was released in 2009. He is more holistic and has more impact during the two years following the faculty decision, on 22nd 2007 than before, however, the prospectus did not reflect the above decision, issued two years later. In this regard, the prospectus should be followed in all respects and in the absence of any condition or limitation in relation to the selection of students to join. In either of these two courses, the Institute could not deprive the applicant of the right which, based on reasonable / reasonable expectation, had placed the teacher's decision in direct conflict with Prospect, which had unconditional rights. Had given. Students may exercise their choice, however the above decision cannot be reconciled with the prospectus and neither can be easily understood.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
