MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL- vs VICE-CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, FAISALABAD and 2 others

' The petitioner was admitted in the respondent-University as M.Sc. Statistics student, which course has four semesters. He has qualified first two semesters and for the third semester, had appeared for the examination after 31-3-2004. On 31-3-2004, a notification was issued by the respondent- University indicating that, for the promotion of a student to the fourth semester, 1.75 CGPA is required. The petitioner had obtained 1.98 CGPA in the third semester and, therefore, was qualified to be promoted to the fourth semester; but this has been declined by the respondent-University for the reason that, according to the subsequent notification of the University dated 12-5-2004, the passing CPGA is 2.00. The petitioner is aggrieved of this notification and his case is that, because he had appeared in the examination according to the notification dated 31-3-2004, which requires the qualification of 1.75 CGPA, therefore, having obtained marks more than required, he should have been promoted. And any subsequent change in the marks' criteria for the promotion, shall not affect his right.

2. Mr. Rashdeen Nawaz Kasuri, the learned counsel for the respondents when confronted, has stated that, in the notification dated 31-3-2004, there was some error and instead 2.00 CGPA, which were the qualifying marks, even provided in the prospectus 1.75 CGPA was typed, and thus, on realizing the error, subsequently the necessary change was made on 12-5-2004.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that, the petitioner had appeared in the examination under the special notification dated 31-3-2004. He had passed the semester on 22-4- 2004, according to the criteria laid therein, and till then, no change was brought in the first notification. Thus, the petitioner acquired a vested right and also the legitimate expectation for his promotion to the next semester, on the basis of the notification, which was in vogue at the time of his appearing in the examination and passing the same. Any subsequent change brought vide notification dated 12-5-2004 would not affect the right of the petitioner which he earned by obtaining the marks more than 1.75. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that, there was a typographical error in the earlier notification dated 31-3-2004, which has been corrected vide notification dated 12-5-2004, suffice it to say that, this is not so indicated in the later notification, rather on reading the same it is clear that a new criteria was enforced, which obviously could not be applied retrospectively to destroy and prejudice the right, which the petitioner had earned.

In the light of above, this petition is allowed with the directional to the respondents that, the petitioner be promoted to the fourth semester as having qualified according to the first criteria laid down in the notification dated 31-3-2004.