2007 PLP 1351 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ZAHID ALAM — Petitioner Versus HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD through Chairman
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1351 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Sayeed Akhtar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ZAHID ALAM — Petitioner Versus HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD through Chairman |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1351 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1351 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Sayeed Akhtar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1351 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ZAHID ALAM — Petitioner Versus HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD through Chairman). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Asif Saeed for Petitioner.
- Malik Anwar Mukhtar Advocate/Legal Advisor with Rizwan Shaukat, Assistant Director.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.199
Constitutional petition
Scholarship
Petitioner applied for Scholarship, appeared in the test and secured 58 marks
As per award list, the candidates who secured 51 marks had been awarded Scholarship, but petitioner was not considered due to his becoming overage
Contention of petitioner who admittedly was overage, that he had become overage owing to the inaction of respondents, had no merit
Petition was dismissed. Ch. Muhammad Saghir, Standing Counsel. Malik Anwar Mukhtar Advocate/Legal Advisor with Rizwan Shaukat, Assistant Director.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J.
Contends that the petitioner applied for Ph.D. Scholarship. He appeared in the test and secured 58 marks. As per award list the candidates who secured 51 marks have been awarded Scholarship, however, the petitioner has been illegally ignored.
2. Learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is overage. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner became overage owing to the inaction on the part of the respondents. The specific object of the Ph.D. Fellowship Programme was to give Scholarship to 5000 students in batches of 1000 students starting from 2003. The stress of the learned counsel is that four batches of Ph.D. students means subsequent four years.
3. I have perused the record and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the petitioner is overage. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has become overage owing to the inaction of the respondents, has no merit. `Subsequent four' years does not mean succeeding four years. I do not find any substance in this petition, therefore, dismiss the same in limine. H.B.T./M-140/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.