IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ 
Mr. Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed 
 
 
 
Civil Appeals No.2234, 2235 of 2005 & 61 of 2006 
(On appeal from the judgment dated 30.06.2004 & 
12.04.2005 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in 
W.P. No.143/2003 & 19438/2004 respectively) 
 
 
And Civil Petitions No.1587-L, 1588-L of 2010 
(On appeal from the judgment dated 6.07.2010 passed by the 
Lahore 
High 
Court, 
Lahore 
in 
W.Ps 
No.5194/2006 
& 
11873/2010) 
 
And Civil Petitions No.445-L & 454-L/2012 
(On appeal from the judgments dated 12.10.2010 & 
13.10.2011 passed by the Lahore High Court in W.Ps. 
No.23372/2009 and 19138 of 2011) 
 
 
1. 
Secretary Economic Affairs Div, Islamabad etc.   (in CA 2234/05) 
 
2. 
Anwarul Haq Ahmed 
 
 
 
 
  (in CA 2235/05) 
 
3. 
Miss Zainab Iqbal Mian  
 
 
 
 (in CA 61/2006) 
 
4. 
Secretary, Govt. of Pb. Health Deptt.  (in CP 1587-L, 1588-L/10) 
 
5. 
Principal/EO, Fatima Jinnah Medical College  
 
for women, Lahore          
 
 
  (in CP 445-L, 454/12) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… 
Appellants/Petitioners 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
VERSUS  
 
1. 
Anwarul Haq Ahmed 
 
 
 
          (in CA 2234/05) 
 
2. 
Secretary M/o Finance etc. 
 
 (in CA 2235/05 & CA 61/06) 
 
3. 
Noorien S. Bokharee & another 
 
    (in CP 1587-L/2010) 
 
4. 
Hassan Ashraf 
 
 
 
 
    (in CP 1588-L/2010) 
 
5. 
Miss Sara Bukhtiar & others  
 
      (in CP 445-L/2012) 
 
6. 
Khadija Akram Ch. & others  
 
      (in CP 454-L/2012) 
 
2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
…       Respondents 
 
 
 
 
For the appellants 
In CA 2234/05 & CP 1587-L, 
1588-L/2010 
 
Mr. Jawwad Hassan, Addl. A.G. Pb. 
Mr. Ijaz Farrukh, Sr. Law Officer, 
Health Department 
(also for respondent in CAs 2235 & 61/2006) 
 
For the appellants 
In CA 2235/05 & CA 61/06 
 
Mr. A.K. Dogar, Sr. ASC 
(also for respondent in CA 2234/05) 
 
For the petitioners: 
in CP 445-L & 454-L/12 
 
 
Mr. Anwar Kamal, Sr. ASC 
 
For the respondents: 
 
Mr. Abdul Sadiq Ch. ASC 
(in CP 1587-88-L/10 & 454-L/10) 
 
Malik Allah Yar Khan, ASC 
(in CP 445-L/12) 
 
For HEC: 
 
Mian Muhammad Hanif, ASC 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
05.06.2013 
 
***** 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ. The listed appeals 
with the leave of the Court as well as the petitions have been filed 
against the judgments of the Lahore High Court, mentioned in the 
title.  
2. 
  
Brief facts of the case are that as per prospectus for the 
sessions 2002-2003 issued by Government of Punjab, Health 
Department for admission in Medical Colleges of the Province, seats 
were 
allocated 
under 
various 
categories 
on 
merits 
and 
to 
accommodate students of some of the countries allocations of seats 
were made under “Pakistan Technical Assistance Programme” (PTAP) 
and under the “Self Finance Scheme” (SFS) for foreign students of 
 
3 
Pakistan origin. For convenience relevant paras from the prospectus 
containing policy read thus:- 
 
(iv) 
FOREIGN STUDENTS SEATS: 
(a) 
Under Technical Assistance Programme: 
The applicants seeking admission to a 
medical 
college 
should 
submit 
their 
applications 
through 
their 
own 
government/embassies to the Government 
of 
Pakistan 
(Economic 
Affairs 
Division, 
Islamabad). The nominations against these 
seats, shall be communicated to the Health 
Department, Government of Punjab, by 
Economic Affairs Division, Islamabad for 
onwards 
transmission 
to 
the 
colleges 
concerned. Applications submitted directly to 
the Principal or to the Government of 
Punjab, shall not be entertained.  
(b) 
… … 
 
(v) 
FOREIGN STUDENTS SEATS ON SELF-FINANCE 
BASIS:- The applicants seeking admission on self-finance 
basis will be required to contribute to the college 
endowment fund. This contribution would be US$10,000 
per annum in addition to the normal fee till graduation. 
However, such students will apply to the Economic Affairs 
Division, Government of Pakistan Ministry of Finance, 
Islamabad. The nominations against these seats, shall be 
communicated to the Health Department, Government of 
the Punjab, by Economic Affairs Division, Islamabad, for 
onward transmission to the colleges concerned. The 
students will have to pay for the first year through pay 
order worth US $ 10,000 in the name of the Principal of 
the college for which he/she has been nominated and for 
the remaining four years a bank guarantee worth US $ 
40,000 in the name of the same Principal. In case a 
student repeats any class at his /heown accord or fails in 
the class/university examination, he/she will have to pay 
US $ 10,000 for each extra year. Students discontinuing 
their studies at their own or expelled from the college will 
not be refunded the remaining amount which would be 
credited to the college according to the bank guarantee. 
 
(vi) 
… … 
 
(vii) 
SELF-FINANCE SEATS:  
 
(a) 
Admissions would be open to local and 
expatriate Pakistans.  
(b) 
Admissions would be on merit.  
(c) 
Fee for local students shall be Rs.2,50,000/- 
per annum. 
(d) 
Fee for expatriate students shall be US$ 
10,000 per annum for colleges in Lahore, US 
$ 7,000 per annum for colleges located in 
Multan and Rawalpindi and US $ 5,000 per 
 
4 
annum for colleges located in Bahawalpur 
and Faisalabad. 
(e) 
In case a student repeats any class at his/ 
her own accord or fails in the class/ 
University Examination, he/she will have to 
pay the same amount as mentioned above 
for each extra year.  
(f) 
For the first year the student will pay in 
cash/pay order and he/she will have to 
submit a bank gurantee for the remaining 
four 
years 
equivalent 
to 
the 
amount 
applicable in his/her case. 
  
 3. 
  
As per the prospectus for the year 2002-2003, 28 seats 
were earmarked on SFS basis for foreign students, out of which 4 
(2+2) seats were allocated to King Edward Medical College. 
4. 
  
Anwarul Haq Ahmed (respondent in CA No.2234/05 and 
appellant in CA No.2235/05) having passed A-Level, from the 
University of Cambridge, England, securing 935 marks out of 1100 as 
per equivalence certificate issued by the Inter Board Committee of 
Chairman. He applied for admission in the first year of MBBS for the 
session 2002-03 for Medical Colleges in Punjab as well as for Self 
Finance Scheme (SFS) and PTAP. He could not get admission on merit 
against the general seats. As he did not fulfil the basic pre-conditions 
of having studied abroad physically, his application was not considered 
under the PTAP, however, he was offered admission under Self Finance 
Scheme (SFS) against the seats reserved for foreign students of 
Pakistan origin in the King Edward Medical College. It is to be noted 
that according to the policy the student admitted under said scheme, 
will have to contribute to the college endowment fund an amount of 
US$10,000/- per annum, which will be paid in advance; that for 
ensuring payment of fee for the remaining four year student will also 
have to furnish a bank guarantee for an amount of US$40,000/-, in 
additional to the fees payable by a regular student.   
 
5 
5. 
  
It is to be noted that Anwar-ul-Haq, respondent being 
Pakistan origin holding foreign nationality succeeded in getting 
admission on SFS basis and deposited his contribution of US $10000 
towards college endowment fund as prescribed in the policy noted 
hereinabove, besides fulfilling his obligations towards payment of 
normal fee thus he was admitted in 1st year of MBBS, Sessions 2002-
2003 in King Edward Medical College.  
6. 
  
It is pertinent to note that the Government of the Punjab, 
Health Department vide letter No.SO(ME)8-91/2003 dated 03.02.2003 
revised the policy for SFS, which is reproduced hereinbelow:- 
“No.SO(ME)8-91/2003 
GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB 
HEALTH DEPARTMENT 
Dated Lahore, the 3rd February, 2003 
To 
The Principal/Chairman, 
Admission Board, 
King Edward medical College, 
Lahore 
 
SUBJECT: 
REDUCTION 
OF 
SELF-FINANCE 
RATES 
FOR 
FOREIGN STUDENTS IN MEDICAL COLLEGES OF 
PUNJAB 
 
Reference your letter No.191/KEMC/2002, dated 8. .2002 on the 
subject noted above. 
2. 
The Competent Authority in the Government of the 
Punjab on reconsideration of the issue decided as under:- 
(i) 
50% seats of MBBS (self-finance) for expatriate 
Pakistans may be kept floating and the preferred 
choice of candidates be respected 
(ii) 
The fee structure for the peripheral colleges like, 
Multan, Rawalpindi be reduced from US$10,000/ to 
US$7,000/- per annum and for Faisalabad and 
Bahawalpur to US$5,000/- per annum. 
3. 
……… 
 
4. 
…. 
 
6 
ADDITIONAL SECRETARY (TACH) 
HEALTH DEPARTMENT” 
 
7. 
  
The 
respondent 
Anwar-ul-Haq 
filed 
a 
Writ 
Petition 
No.143/2003 before the Lahore High Court, wherein following prayer 
was made:- 
“In the light of Paras 31, 32, 33 and 34 it is respectfully prayed 
that this learned court be pleased to declare the Revised Fee 
Structure under Self Financing Scheme (SFS) for foreign 
students of Pakistan origin ultra vires of the provisions of 
Articles 2-A, 3, 4 and 25 read with 37(c) of the Constitution of 
the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. 
It is further prayed that this learned court be pleased to direct 
the respondents to charge the petitioner a fee commensurate 
with the actual expenditure of Rs.100,000 per annum incurred 
on his education, which may be receivable in US dollars without 
any additional fee, and to accordingly adjust the already paid 
US$10000 by the petitioner refunding him extra amount after 
deducting the aforesaid actual expenditure. 
Also, it is prayed to direct the Respondents to abolish the bank 
guarantee as security for payment of future fee for 4 years since 
it is not required in any other province of the country and, being 
too harsh, it has already been withdrawn by Punjab government 
for local students admitted under SFS.” 
 
8. 
  
In the meanwhile, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of 
Economic 
Affairs 
and 
Statistics 
vide 
letter 
dated 
06.06.2003 
communicated following decision to the Secretary Health, Government 
of Pakistan:- 
“No.1(1)FS/03 
GOVERNMENT OF Pakistan 
MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS & STATISTICS 
(ECONOMIC AFFAIRS DIVISION) 
Islamabad, the 6th June, 2003 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fax:  
92-51-9205971 & 9210734 
From:  
Joint Secretary, 
Tele:  
9205327 
 
 
7 
SUBJECT: 
ADMISSION 
OF 
FOREIGN 
UNDER 
PAKISTAN 
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMME (PTAP/SELF 
FINANCING SCHEME (SFS). 
 
1 
… 
2. 
… 
3. 
… 
4. 
You would kindly appreciate that the high fee rates for 
Self-Financing Scheme and condition of submitting bank 
guarantee for remaining four years studies has resulted into low 
utilization of these seats for the last many years. No doubt the 
revision of fee rates made by the Health department during last 
year has improved the utilization of seats under SFS in Punjab. 
However, it can be improved further by reducing the fee rates to 
US$7,000 per annum for Medical colleges in Lahore and 
US$5,000 for Colleges of rest of cities of Punjab and by waving 
off the condition of bank guarantee as no such condition exists 
in other Province.”  
The above decision has been taken in continuation of letter dated 
03.02.2003 issued by Government of the Punjab, Health Department, 
which has been reproduced hereinabove.  
9. 
  
It may not be out of context to note that pending decision 
of petition filed by the respondent before the High Court, Government 
of Punjab enhanced status of King Edward Medical College to 
University vide the King Edward Medical University, Lahore Act, 2005. 
10. 
  
A learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, vide 
judgment dated 02.08.2004, allowed the said writ petition to the 
extent that the letter dated 03.02.2003 in so far it prescribed a 
different fee structure for the Foreign students admitted under the Self 
Finance Scheme in different colleges of the Punjab and the condition of 
furnishing Bank guarantee were set-aside. It was further directed that 
the respondent authorities may, however, charge those students a 
 
8 
uniform rate of US $5000 per annum irrespective of the College in 
which they were admitted. Relevant para therefrom is reproduced 
hereinbelow:- 
“10. 
For what has been discussed above, this petition is 
allowed. The letter dated 3.2.2003 in for as it prescribes a 
different fee structure for foreign students admitted under the 
self-finance scheme in different Colleges of the Punjab and the 
condition of furnishing Bank guarantee are set aside. The 
respondent authorities may, however, charge those students a 
uniform rate of US$5,000/- per annum for irrespective of the 
Colleges in which they are admitted. The petition stands 
disposed of in terms noted above.” 
11. 
  
The Secretary, Economics Affairs Division, Government of 
the Pakistan, Islamabad; Secretary Health Government of the Punjab; 
Principal Executive Officer/Dean; and Deputy Dean, King Edward 
medical College, Lahore, assailed the above decision in Civil Petition 
No. 2932-L/2004, whereas respondent Anwar-ul-Haq also challenged 
the same in Civil Petition No.2763-L/2004, wherein the reduced 
amount of endowment US$5000 was also questioned being highly 
excessive as compared to the actual expenditures by the government 
on education and training of medical students. Leave to appeal was 
granted vide order dated 23.11.2005, inter alia, to examine the 
questions highlighted by the parties through their counsel while 
arguing their respective petitions.  
12. 
  
It is important to note that following the judgment passed 
by the Lahore High Court in the case of Anwar-ul-Haq, Writ Petitions 
No.19438/04 (Ms. Zainab Iqbal Mian), 5198/2006 (Noorien S. 
Bokharee), 23372/09 (Ms. Sara Bakhtiar), 11873/2010 (Hassan 
 
9 
Ashraf) and 19138/11 (Ms. Khadija Akram Ch.) were filed before the 
High Court. In these petitions inter alia following prayers were made:- 
“In view of the above circumstances and submissions it is 
respectfully prayed that this honourable court be pleased to 
declare that the General Conditions/Guide Lines for admission of 
foreign students of Pakistan Origin under Pakistan Technical 
Assistance Programme (PTAP) and Self Financing Scheme (SFS) 
are without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the 
petitioner is entitled to the same benefit as already directed by 
this Honourable Court in W.P.No.1162/2006 as well as in the 
light of reported judgment in PLD 2004 Lahore 771 which was 
decided prior to the admission of the petitioner. 
It is further prayed that pending disposal of the main petition 
this honourable court be pleased to direct the respondents that 
the sum of US$5000 P.A. only be charged from the petitioner in 
future years as directed in Anwar-ul-Haq case (PLD 2004 Lahore 
771). 
It is further prayed that the excess payment of US$10000 
already received by the respondent No.3 from the petitioner 
directed to be adjusted against future demands for the ends of 
justice, equity and fair play.” 
13. 
  
Learned High Court following the dictum laid down in the 
judgment arising out of Anwar-ul-Haq’s case, allowed writ petitions 
No. 5198/06, 23372/09, 11873/2010 and 19138/11 whereas writ 
petition No. 19438/04 filed by Miss Zainab Iqbal Mian was partly 
allowed, wherein the learned Division Bench of the High Court, after 
relying upon the said case, did not strike down the SFS. However, it 
was held that foreign students admitted under SFS should also be 
treated equally with in their class and they should not be subjected to 
a varying fee structure on the basis of different colleges in the 
province of Punjab; all students under the above scheme should be 
charged with same fee irrespective of their College or cities within the 
 
10
Province, in view of the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution. The 
details of the proceedings of the High Court are as under:- 
Writ Petition 
No. 
Title 
of 
the 
Petition 
Date 
of 
Judgment 
 
Decision 
WP 19438/04 
Miss 
Zainab 
Iqbal 
Mian 
v. 
Secretary 
Ministry 
of 
Finance 
12.04.2005 Partly allowed in 
the light of the 
judgment 
in 
Anwar-ul-Haq’s 
case 
WP 5198/06 
Norien 
S. 
Koharee 
v. 
Secretary 
Economic 
Affairs 
06.07.2010 Allowed 
and 
Disposed 
of 
in 
terms 
of 
judgment 
in 
Anwar-ul-Haq’s 
case 
WP 11873/10 
Hassan 
Ashraf 
v. 
Secretary 
Health, Govt. of 
Punjab 
06.07.2010 Allowed 
and 
Disposed 
of 
in 
terms 
of 
judgment 
in 
Anwar-ul-Haq’s 
case 
WP 23372/09 
Miss 
Sara 
Bukhtiar 
v. 
Secretary 
to 
Government of 
Pakistan 
12.10.2010 Allowed in terms 
of 
judgment 
in 
Anwar-ul-Haq’s 
case 
WP 19138/11 
Khadija 
Akram 
Chaudhry 
v. 
Government of 
the Punjab 
13.10.2011 Disposed 
of 
in 
terms 
of 
judgment 
in 
Anwar-ul-Haq’s 
case 
 
14. 
  
It is to be noted that pending decision of Civil Petitions No.2763-
L/2004 and 2932-L/2004, impugned judgments passed in Writ Petitions 
No.5198/2006, 23372/09, 11873/2010 and 19138/11 were challenged 
by the departments whereas, Miss Zainab Iqbal Mian also assailed Writ 
Petition No.19438/04 in this Court.  
15. 
  
It is necessary to note that initially under the policy 
guidelines with regard to admission in the Medical Colleges in different 
cities of Punjab, e.g., Lahore, Rawalpindi, Multan and Faislabad, a 
uniform prospectus used to be issued allowing mostly the admission in 
Medical Colleges on merit basis. The candidates, who were found 
 
11
eligible on merit, were accommodated as per the policy. However, 
there were certain other applicants/candidates like Anwar-ul-Haq, who 
were of Pakistan origin holding foreign nationality, when could not 
compete on merit, were left only with one option to apply on SFS 
basis. Because they had accepted the term & conditions laid down in 
the policy noted above, therefore, they were given admission. 
Subsequent thereto, the condition to the extent of deposit of 
endowment fund was changed and ultimately vide letter dated 
03.02.2003, it was reduced as mentioned above but to the extent of 
candidates/students who would seek admission in future and not for 
the students who had already got admission.  
16. 
  
Learned counsel for the appellants-departments stated 
that respondents-students are estopped to challenge the policy of 
admission on self finance basis, as they themselves had accepted the 
terms & conditions for the admission in 1st Year MBBS in Medical 
College after failing to get admission on merits, as he/they were not 
found eligible for not securing required marks.   
17. 
  
Learned 
Additional 
Advocate 
General 
was 
not 
in 
attendance when case was heard; however, he has filed written 
arguments, inter alia, relying upon the arguments, which have been 
noted above.  
18. 
  
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents-
students that both schemes noted hereinabove are confiscatory in 
nature and discriminatory as well as in violation of their fundamental 
rights enshrined in Article 9 read with Article 25 of the Constitution.  
 
12
19. 
  
We have heard the parties’ counsel, gone through the 
material so made available on record and perused the leave granting 
order dated 23.11.2005.  
20. 
  
Before dilating upon the arguments of the parties, it is 
considered appropriate to note that educational institutions are 
independent to follow policy for admission including affairs relating to 
changing conditions for endowment funds or fee, either under the 
policy given by the government or adopted by the college; and 
interference in the policy by the Court is possible only in exceptional 
circumstances. Reference may be made to the case of Chairman Joint 
Admission Commission v. Raza Hassan  (1999 SCMR 965) wherein it 
was held that the universities in Pakistan enjoy complete freedom to 
take decision in their own matters and interference by the Courts in 
such matters would be the least desirable, except for exceptional 
circumstances. In another case namely Mian Muhammad Afzal v. 
Province of Punjab (2004 SCMR 1570) this Court declined to interfere 
in the matter relating to the admission in the medical college, on the 
ground that it was of administrative nature relating to policy. In the 
case of Shazia Irshad Bokhari v. Government of Punjab (PLD 2005 
Lahore 428), the learned Lahore High Court held that the Court, under 
its Constitutional jurisdiction would not enter into policy making 
domain of the State or question the wisdom of the legislature; it would 
not normally interfere or strike down a policy made by the 
Government unless the same was proved mala fide or made in a 
colourable exercise of authority, etc. It was further held that the 
classification in terms of equal treatment was legally permissible. 
 
13
Reference may also be made the case of Waqas Zafar v. Baha-ud-Din 
Zakriya University (2010 CLC 999).  
21. 
 
At this juncture it is to be observed that in respect of 
foreign students and students of Pakistan origin two independent 
policies have been followed by the Medical Colleges since the time 
when respondents-students themselves applied for admission on Self 
Finance Basis. Details of the seats reserved in different colleges for the 
year 2002-2003 are as follows: -   
Sr.
No. 
Category 
KEMC 
NMC 
QMC PMC 
RMC AIMC FJMC 
Total 
 
1. 
Open 
Merit 
Seats 
171 
159 
159 
159 
159 
169 
135 
1111 
2. 
Reserved 
Seat 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
i). 
Disabled 
students 
seats 
1 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
1 
12 
ii). 
Federally 
Administere
d 
Tribunal 
Areas 
(FATA) 
seats 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
7 
iii). 
Azad 
Jammu 
& 
Kashmir 
and 
Northern 
Areas seats 
- 
4 
4 
4 
4 
- 
12 
28 
iv). 
Foreign 
Students 
Seats under 
Technical 
Assitance 
Program 
5 
10 
11 
10 
10 
5 
21 
72 
v). 
Foreign 
Students 
Seats 
on 
Self Finance 
basis 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
28 
vi). 
Reciprocal 
Seats 
2 
3 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
15 
vii) 
Total seats 
of 
categories 
(i to vi) 
13 
24 
24 
23 
23 
14 
41 
162 
 
Total 
184 
183 
183 
182 
18
2 
183 
176 
1273 
 
 
14
22. 
 
With regard to the arguments of the learned counsel for 
the respondents-students that the charging of fee/endowment funds at 
higher rates from the students of SFS as compared to other students is 
discriminatory as well as violative of Article 9 read with Article 25 of 
the Constitution, it is to be noted that Article 25 provides that all 
citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of 
law, and that there shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex. 
However, by now it is well settled that equality clause does not 
prohibit classification for those differently circumstanced provided a 
rational standard is laid down. The doctrine of reasonable 
classification is founded on the assumption that the State has to 
perform multifarious activities and deal with a vast number of 
problems. The protection of Article 25 of the Constitution can be 
denied in peculiar circumstances of the case on basis of reasonable 
classification 
founded 
on 
an 
intelligible 
differentia 
which 
distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from 
those who have been left out. The differentia, however, must have 
rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by such 
classification.  Reference in this behalf may be made to the case of 
I.A. Sharwani v. Government of Pakistan (1991 SCMR 1041) wherein 
the issue has been dealt with in detail. In the case of Tariq Aziz-ud-Din 
and others (Human Rights cases Nos.834O of 2009, etc.) (2010 SCMR 
130) it was held as under: - 
22. 
… … We are also conscious of the provision of Article 25 
of the Constitution, which guarantees equality of citizens. 
However, denying such protection in peculiar circumstances of 
the case on basis of reasonable classification founded on an 
intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things 
that are grouped together from those who have been left out. 
 
15
The differentia, however, must have rational nexus to the 
object sought to be achieved by such classification [Dr. 
Mobashir Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 
2010 SC 265]. … …” 
In the case of National Bank of Pakistan v. Nasim Arif Abbasi (2011 
SCMR 446) this Court after relying upon I.A. Sharwani’s case (supra) 
declined to grant relief on the ground that no discrimination prohibited 
under Article 25 of the Constitution and a reasonable classification did 
exist between the two categories of employees, i.e., those who had 
exercised the option and those who had not exercised the option. In 
the case of Dr. Shahnaz Wajid v. Federation of Pakistan (2011 SCMR 
1737) same principle was reiterated in the following words: - 
“5. 
… … It is well settled by now that “equality clause does 
not prohibit different laws for those differently circumstanced 
provided a rational standard is laid down to guide the 
discretion of the relevant Authority to choose the appropriate 
law. A State may classify persons and objects for the purpose 
of legislation and make laws applicable only to persons or 
objects within a class. In fact almost all legislation involves 
some kind of classification whereby some people acquire 
rights or suffer disabilities which others do not. Expression 
“equal protection of laws” does not place embargo on power 
of State” to classify either in adoption of police laws, or tax 
laws, or eminent domain laws” rather gives to state exercise 
of wide scope of discretion, of course, nullifying “what is 
without any reasonable basis”. The State has the power of 
what is known as “classification” on the basis of rational 
distinctions relevant to the particular subject dealt with. 
Classification may be due to geographical situation or it may 
be based on territorial, economic, communal and other similar 
considerations. The Constitution itself contemplates passing of 
different laws for different provinces by their respective 
legislatures. The doctrine of reasonable classification is 
founded on the assumption that the State has to perform 
 
16
multifarious activities and deal with a vast number of 
problems. It, therefore, should have the power to make a 
reasonable classification of persons and things, to whom 
different treatment may be accorded, provided there is 
legitimate basis for such difference the State can make laws 
to attain special objects, and the administrative authorities 
may make classification, in pursuance of such laws. But the 
classification should not be arbitrary and capricious and must 
rest on reasonableness and have a fair nexus and a just 
relation with the need for which classification is made”. 
Ziaullah Khan v. Government of Punjab (PLD 1989 Lah. 554), 
Akram Khan v. State (PLD 1976 Lah. 1224), Fauji Foundation 
v. Shamimur Rehman (PLD 1983 SC 457), I.A. Sharwani v. 
Government of Pakistan (1991 SCMR 1041), Aziz Begum v. 
Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1990 SC 899), Balochistan Bar 
Association v. Government of Balochistan (PLD 1991 Quetta 
7), Kathi Raning v. State of Saurashtra (AIR 1952 SC 123), 
Dhirendra v. Supdt. and Remembr (AIR 1954 SC 424), Zain 
Noorani v. Secretary of National Assembly (PLD 1957 Kar. 1), 
Government of Punjab  v.  Naila  Begum  (PLD  1987  Lah.  
336),  Charanjit Lal v. Union  of  India  (AIR  1951  SC  41), 
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali (AIR 1952 SC 75), Rehman 
Shagoo v. State of J&K (1958 Cri L Jour 885), TK Abraham v. 
State of Tra. Co. (AIR 1958 Ker. 129), PLR 1957 (1) 743). 
 
In the case of N.W.F.P. Public Service Commission v. Muhammad Arif 
(2011 SCMR 848) the Court held as under: - 
“8. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove it can be 
inferred safely that reasonable classification which is not 
arbitrary or violative of doctrine of equality cannot be 
questioned. We are not impressed by the contention made by 
the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of respondents 
that it is a case of sheer discrimination because discrimination 
means “making a distinction or difference between things; a 
distinction; a difference; a distinguishing mark or characteristic; 
the power of observing differences accurately, or of making 
exact distinctions; discernment. But discrimination against a 
group or an individual implies making an adverse distinction 
 
17
with 
regard 
to 
some 
benefit, 
advantage 
or 
facility. 
Discrimination thus involves an element of unfavourbale bias 
and it is in that sense that the expression has to be understood 
in this context [Shirin Munir v. Government of Punjab (PLD 1990 
SC 295), Pakcom Limited v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2011 
SC 44)]. The learned Advocate Supreme Court has failed to 
point out any unfavourable bias which is an essential ingredient 
of discrimination and it is not understandable that how it can be 
pressed in to service.” 
 
Reference in this behalf may also be made to the case of Safdar Jamil 
v. Vice-Chancellor (2011 CLC 116), wherein a division Bench of Lahore 
High Court held that equality of citizens, provided in Article 25 of the 
Constitution meant equal treatment amongst persons, who are equally 
placed and reasonable classification in terms of equal treatment is 
legally permissible. The students obtaining less marks as compared to 
the students who succeeded in getting admission on open merit, were 
not similarly situated or placed and differential treatment was justified. 
Relevant para therefrom reads as under: -               
“9. We do not agree with the argument of the learned counsel 
for the petitioners that the Self-Finance Scheme was violative 
of the fundamental rights, enshrined in the Constitution of 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as equality of the citizens, 
provided in Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973, means equal treatment amongst persons, 
who are equally placed and reasonable classification in terms 
of equal treatment is legally permissible. In this connection, a 
reference could be made to the case of I.A. Sharwani and 
others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance 
Division, Islamabad and others (1991 SCMR 1041), wherein, 
it has been held that Clause (1) of Article 25 of the 
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 does not 
prohibit the State to treat citizens on the basis of reasonable 
classification. A classification would be considered reasonable, 
if it is based on an intelligible differentia, which distinguishes 
 
18
persons or things that are grouped together from those, who 
have been left out. The conditions, prerequisites for seeking 
protection of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic 
of Pakistan, 1973, have also been discussed in the judgments 
reported in the cases of Messrs Gadoon Textile Mills and 814 
others v. WAPDA and others (1997 SCMR 641), Muhammad 
Ramzan and 3 others v. Government of Pakistan through 
Secretary Ministry of Law, justice and Parliamentary Affairs, 
Pakistan Secretarial, Islamabad and 3 others (2004 YLR 
1856), Shehzad Riaz v. Federation of Pakistan through 
Secretary Cabinet Division and 3 others (2006 YLR 229), 
Government of the Punjab. through Chief Secretary, Punjab, 
Lahore v. Naseer Ahmad Khan through L.Rs. and others (2010 
SCMR 431) Tariq Aziz-ud-Din and others in re Human Rights 
cases Nos.834O, 9504-G, 13936-G, 13635-P 14306-G to 
143309-G 4.2009 (2010 SCMR 130) and Dr. Mobashir Hassan 
and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2010 SC 
265). … …”    
 
Thus, it is held that the classification between the students, who 
secured more marks and succeeded in getting admission on open 
merit and the students, who, after failing to get admission on open 
merit, opted to get the benefit of Self Finance Scheme, is based on an 
intelligible differentia as such reasonable. Therefore, students who 
opted to apply for admission on Self Finance basis, after being failed to 
get admission on open merit, can not claim the protection of Article 25 
of the Constitution as they are neither similarly placed nor such 
classification is unreasonable.   
23. 
 
It is to be noted that the doctrine of ‘estoppel’ means a 
disability whereby a party is precluded from alleging or proving in legal 
proceedings that a fact is otherwise than it has been made to appear 
by the matter giving rise to that disability. Even as a rule of evidence 
 
19
or pleading a party should not be allowed to approbate and reprobate. 
Reference in this behalf may be made to the case of Haji Ghulam 
Rasool v. The Chief Administrator of Auqaf (PLD 1971 SC 376) wherein 
it was held as under; - 
“The doctrine of estoppel is not confined to the matters deal 
with under section 115 of the Evidence Act, for, as pointed out 
by Garth, C. J. in the case of Ganges Manufacturing Co. v. 
Sourajmull (I L R 5 Cal. 669) “estoppels in the sense in which 
the term is used in the English legal phraseology are matters of 
infinite variety and are by no means confined to the subjects 
dealt within Chapter VIII of the Evidence Act”. It has been 
defined in Salsbury's Laws of England (2nd Edn.), Vol. 13, “as a 
disability whereby a party is precluded from alleging or proving 
in legal proceedings that a fact is otherwise than it has been 
made to appear by the matter giving rise to that disability”. It is 
in this sense that it has often been held that even as a rule of 
evidence or pleading a party should not be allowed to approbate 
and reprobate. This principle was acted upon by the Judicial 
Committee in the case of Lakshmana Goundan v. Subramania 
Aiyar (AIR 1924 PC 44) where it was held that if a person had 
“held out and represented to the Hindu public that the temple 
was a public temple” he cannot resile from that position. 
Similarly in the case of Jai Dayal v. Dewan Ram Sarn Das (A I R 
1938 Lah.686) the Lahore High Court also held that “where a 
person with full knowledge of the facts in unmistakable terms 
admitted the wakf nature of a house, he cannot subsequently be 
allowed to resile from that position”.”  
In the case of M/s Gadoon Textile v. WAPDA (1997 S C M R 641) it 
was held that if on the basis of representation made one party, any 
other party, acting bona fide, legally enters into any transaction, 
contract or deal which gives rise to rights and liabilities enforceable at 
law, then a vested right is created and the benefits or concessions 
arising from the representation made cannot be withdrawn. In the 
case of Pakistan v. Fecto Belarus Tractors Ltd. (PLD 2002 SC 208) it 
 
20
was held that true principle of promissory estoppel seems to be that 
where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a clear 
and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or 
effect a legal relationship to arise in future, knowing or intending that 
it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is 
made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party, the promise 
would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled 
to go back upon the same, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do 
so having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the 
parties and this would be so irrespective of whether there is any pre-
existing relationship between the parties or not. In the case of 
Muhammad Zubair v. Government of Pakistan (2012 CLC 1071) a 
division Bench of learned Lahore High Court held that the students 
appeared in the Entry Test in terms of the merit/weightage criteria 
publicized by the competent authority without challenging it and 
when they could not perform well in the entry test, they filed the 
writ petitions apprehending that they would be ousted on the basis 
of the entry tests, therefore, they were estopped by their own 
conduct to challenge the vires of the weightage criteria or merit on 
the settled principle of estoppel and waiver. The equality is only 
possible amongst the persons who are placed in same set of 
circumstances. In Yahya Gulzar v. Province of Punjab (2001 CLC 9) it 
was held that candidate who had not challenged the vires of 
prospectus before appearing in the entry test for admission was 
estopped to file Constitutional petition against the entry test on the 
principle of estoppel and waiver as per principle laid down by the 
Honourable Supreme Court in Ghulam Rasool’s case (PLD 1971 SC 
 
21
376). In the case of Turner Morrison & Co. v. Hungerford Investment 
Trust Ltd. (AIR 1972 SC 1311) the Indian Supreme Court held that 
“estoppel is a rule of equity. That rule has gained new dimensions in 
recent years. A new class of estoppel i.e. promissory estoppel has 
come to be recognised by the courts in this country as well as in 
England.” 
24. 
 
Thus, we are in agreement with the learned Additional 
Advocate General that under the doctrine of ‘promissory estoppel’ the 
respondents-students are estopped to challenge their contribution of 
US$ 10,000 in endowment fund, in terms of article 114 of the Qanun-
e-Shahadat Order, 1984, as they themselves accepted the terms and 
conditions of admission policy while getting admission on SFS basis. 
25. 
 
As far as the different fee structure for foreign students 
admitted under SFS in different colleges of Punjab is concerned, it is to 
be noted that every college has its own study atmosphere due to 
different facilities available therein, which also vary from city to city. 
Further, the expenditures and cost of education also change in various 
cities. Thus, a uniform policy to contribute towards endowment fund 
can not be prescribed by the government of Punjab or by College 
Administration situated in different cities. The finding of the learned 
High Court directing the authorities to charge from all students a 
uniform rate of US $5000 per annum, irrespective of the colleges, 
being unwarranted in view of the above discussion is not sustainable in 
law and the Constitution.  
26. 
 
For the foregoing reasons, the CA No.2234 of 2005, CP 
No.1587-L & 1588-L of 2010 filed by the department (Secretary 
 
22
Economic 
Division; 
Secretary 
Government 
of 
Punjab 
Health 
Department etc.) are allowed. Whereas, CA No.2235 of 2005 and CA 
No.61 of 2006 filed by the students are dismissed.  
27. 
 
As far as CP No.445-L & 454 of 2012 CP are concerned, 
these are barred by time and also have become infructuous in view of 
allowing relief to other appellants in appeals noted hereinabove.  
 
 
No order as to cost. 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
       Judge 
 
 
       Judge 
Announced in open Court on_31.07.2013 
At Islamabad,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice  
 
 
 
Nisar/* 
Approved For Reporting 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
