1987 PLP 1133 (CLC)

Sardar Faiz Muhammad Khan Khosa and Mirza Manzoor Ahmad, for Petitioners. Insaf Bhatti for Respondent No.5. Date of hearing: 15th February, 1987. The two petitioners seeking admission in B.Sc. to the University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore applied to the Commissioner, D.G. Khan for being nominated against the two reserved seats. Besides them 5 others, respondents Nos. 5 to 9 had also applied to the Commissioner. The Commissioner sent all the applications to the University giving the marks obtained by each student vide Annexure 'D'. Petitioner No.l is shown on the list at No.2. Petitioner No.2 was shown at No.4. In this Constitutional petition it is contended that the learned Commissioner should have sent the names of only two persons who were to be nominated for admission in the University and he erred in sending the names of all the applicants. It is secondly contended that respondents Nos. .5 and 6 did not belong to the Tribal areas and were thus ineligible for being and nominated. It may be noted that respondent No.5 has been put at No.l in the list sent by the Commissioner to the University. Learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to Rule 49.15 of the prospectus 1986‑87 of the University which reads as follows:‑

The candidates seeking admission against the seats reserved for Tribal Areas of D.G. Khan and Rajanpur districts should apply to the Commissioner, D.G. Khan Division, D.G. Khan, alongwith the relevant documents being residents of the said Area. The Commissioner, D.G. Khan Division, D.G. Khan will nominate the candidates on the basis of merit. The candidates must fulfil the other requirements of subsection R.49.(i)."

2. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Commissioner should have only nominated only two applicants is concerned, it need only be said that the Commissioner has sent the names of all the applicants but according to the order of merit. The applicant who has been put at No.l had obtained 795 marks and No.2 had obtained 691 marks. All the others have got lesser marks. According to Rule 49(15) quoted above the Commissioner was to nominate candidates on the basis of merit. According to the basis of the merit Hafiz Ahmad Bakhsh and Mr. Hafeezullah who had applied to the Commissioner were at No. 1 and

2. Therefore, as far as the petition of Mr. Hafeezullah is concerned, he can have no grievance because he having been nominated at No.2 will be admitted. As regards Hafiz Ahmad Bakhsh put down at No.l by the Commissioner, contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that he was 'not a resident of the Tribal area. In the report called for and it is: undisputed that Hafiz Ahmad Bakhsh .had produced a domicile certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner, D.G. Khan and as long as the domicile certificate is intact, nobody is entitled to say that he is not domicile of that particular area. Consequently, it has to be taken that Hafiz Ahmad Bakhsh was of the domicile of the Tribal area as evidence by the domicile certificate. It may also be noticed that he has been put at No.l, securing as high marks as 795 and other petitioner No.2 left out had got 680 only, i.e. he lags behind by 115 marks. How can it be fairly urged that a boy with 795 marks should not be admitted and a boy with 115 marks less i.e. 680 be admitted?

3. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is disposed of with the observation that the persons nominated by the learned Commissioner in order of merit will be accepted by the University to the extent of the quota reserved. For clarity it may be stated that the first two persons in the order of merit i.e Hafiz Ahmad Bakhsh and Mr. Hafeezullah will be the nominees per Rule 49.15 and they shall be admitted by the University accordingly. The petition is thus disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H. B. T./H‑7/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.