Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.6056 of 1982, decided on 2nd March, 1982.

‑‑‑S.10(2)(vi) & (xxi), Prospectus of Government College of Technology for year 1981‑82, para. 4.3‑‑Educational Institution‑‑Prospectus of‑ --College of technology for years 1981‑82‑‑Power of Board to amend rules of admission‑‑Admission to First Year‑‑Reduction in relaxation in upper age limit‑‑Board of Technical Education though competent to make amendment in rules for admission to 1st Year class yet it could not alter same to operate with retrospective effect, adversely affecting those who had already applied for admission and had requisite Qualifications on last date of receipt of admission applications‑‑Applicants (petitioners) who were otherwise qualified for admission but on account of amendment in rules of admissions, made applicable with retrospective effect, reduced relaxation in upper age limit‑‑Their applications, held, to be processed in accordance with requirement of relevant rules as existed on date of receipt of application‑‑Directive issued by Board to apply ,amendment in rule for current academic session declared without lawful authority.

Nawab Saeed Ullah Khan for Petitioners.

Rashid Aziz Khan, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondent No. 1.

Sh. Abdur Rauf for Respondent No.2.

Date of hearing: 10th February, 1982.

This constitutional petition calls in question the validity of the decision, dated 15‑12‑1981 of the Board of Technical Education, Lahore, conveyed to respondent. No.1 vide letter, dated 19‑12‑1981, whereby upper age limit relaxable upto 22 years, in cases of candidates otherwise eligible on merits, seeking admission to 1st Year clays in the academic sessions 1981‑82, has been reduced to 21 years, with a direction for implementation of the decision from the current academic session.

2. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioners applied for admission to 1st Year class in the Government College of Technology Railway Road, Lahore, b6fore 5‑11‑1981; the last date notified for submission of applications. At the relevant time, vide paragraph 4.3 of the College Prospectus the upper age limit of the candidates who otherwise were eligible on merits, was relaxable upto 22 years by the Board of Technical Education, Lahore. The petitioners at that time were below 22 years and eligible on merits.

On 15‑12‑1981 the Board of Technical Education, Lahore decided to reduce the relaxability of upper age limit from 22 years to 21 years, with the result that the petitioners who were eligible on merits and entitled to consideration for relaxation of their application for relaxation of their age limits to 22 years by the Board' were deprived 'to get admission to 1st Year class in the current session.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the eligibility of the candidates seeking admission to 1st Year class having been prescribed in the College Prospectus for the session 1981‑82, the petitioners were entitled to have their applications submitted to the Punjab Board of Technical Education, Lahore, for relaxation of age limit upto 22 years. The impugned decision of the Board to reduce the relaxation of upper age limit of candidates to 21 years is arbitrary and cannot be retrospective in effect, so as to deprive the petitioners from their entitlement to seek admission in the 1st Year class, particularly when they are otherwise eligible on merits.

5. Learned Additional Advocate‑General, on the other " hand, contended that the Hoard of Technical Education is empowered under section 10(2)(vi) and (xxi) of the West Pakistan Board of Technical Education Ordinance, 1962 to make amendment 'in the rules of the prospectus. The amendment made in the rules of Prospectus shall take effect from 19‑12‑1981, and not retrospectively as asserted by the respondents. It was pointed out that the admission to the 1st Year class in the Government College of Technology, Railway Road, Lahore, has not been finalised and the amendment in rule shall effect the selection of the candidates for admission to the 1st Year class for the current session. It was also pointed out that on the first page of the Prospectus it was made clear to the candidates that the rules or conditions mentioned in the Prospectus were liable to amendment at any time without any formal notice. It was submitted that by merely filing applications for admission to a particular class, the petitioners acquire no vested right for admission to the class.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on the file with their assistance. Undoubtedly, the petitioners applied for admission to 1st Year class, before the last date of the receipt of applications. The provisions of rule 4.3 of the College Prospectus operative on that day relevant to the extent is reproduced hereunder:‑---

It shows that on 5‑11‑1981 the petitioners fulfilled the requirements of the relevant Rule as contained in the College Prospectus, but the impugned decision was taken subsequent to the last date o the receipt of the applications. It was, however, made applicable for admission to the 1st Year class in the academic session 1981‑82; thus depriving the petitioners for consideration of their applications for relaxation of their upper age limits upto 22 years. The Board is doubt competent to make amendment in the rules for admission to 1st Year class, but not to alter the same to operate with retrospective effect, adversely affecting those who had already applied for admission to the class and .had the requisite qualification on the last date of the receipt of the admission applications. The impugned decision of the Board shall operate prospectively for the next academic session and the directive to apply amendment in the rule for the current academic session has no legal validity and to that extent is declared without lawful authority. It is, therefore, held that the Board of Technical Education, Lahore has competently made amendment in the relevant rule modifying the qualification of candidates for admission to 1st Year class but the decision shall take effect prospectively and shall not operate retroactively so as to cover the cases of the petitioners who had already applied for admission before the last date notified for the receipt of applications.

7. In the result, the applications of the petitioners shall be processed in accordance with requirements of the relevant rule, as it existed on 5‑11‑1981 and this petition is allowed only to the extent indicated above, with no order as to costs.

M . Y.H. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.