P L D 1993 Supreme Court 424 (PLP)
Miss UZMA RASHID and 5 others ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus VICE‑CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB,
| Citation | P L D 1993 Supreme Court 424 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | Miss UZMA RASHID and 5 others ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus VICE‑CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1993 Supreme Court 424 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1993 Supreme Court 424 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1993 Supreme Court 424 (PLP) (Miss UZMA RASHID and 5 others ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus VICE‑CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Rec6rd for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: I Ith April, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the orders/judgment dated 10‑1‑1993, 23‑11‑1992 of the Lahore High Court passed in W.Ps. Nos.529/92, 9053/92, 8510/92, 8277/92,8655/92 and 82719 of 1992). Educational institution ‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 25 & 185(3) ‑‑‑ Validity of the notifications issued by the Vice‑Chancellor of the University by which a candidate who had failed to clear a certain Examination in four chances availed or unveiled offered by the University would cease to be eligible for further education in the respective field ‑‑‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether in applying the impugned notifications respondents had discriminated petitioners and had thus violated Fundamental Right No.25; whether the notifications in question, were ultra vires; and whether the petitioners who were admitted much prior to the enforcement of the notifications, could be subjected to such penalty as imposed by them, particularly as they were not in force at the time of taking admission.
Judgment & Decree
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑In all these petitions common question of law and fact is involved. They' seek leave to challenge the order of the High Court whereby their intra‑Court appeals against the judgment passed in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed. In the writ petitions the petitioners had challenged the notification issued by the Vice‑Chancellor, University of Punjab dated 5‑11‑1988 and 13‑4‑1992 by which a candidate who fails to clear first professional M.B.,B.S. examination in four chances availed or unavailed offered by the University shall cease to be eligible for further medical/dental education. The main ground of the petitioners was that they had taken admission in the medical college much before the implementation of these notifications and therefore they were not applicable to them. The petitioners had further challenged on the ground that the Vice‑Chancellor was not competent to frame these notifications and they were ultra vires.
2. The learned counsel pointed out that after the promulgation of these notifications, on a letter dated 1‑9‑1992 from' the Principal, Punjab Medical College, Faisalabad to respondent No.2, the students who had been admitted in 1987 and 1988, i.e. prior to promulgation of the notifications were allowed to appear in the examination. The questions for consideration in these petitions are as follows:‑ (i) Whether in applying the impugned notifications the respondents have discriminated the petitioners and have thus violated fundamental right No.25? (ii) Whether the notifications ‑are ultra vires? (iii) Can the petitioners, who were admitted much prior to the enforcement of the notifications, be subjected to such penalty as imposed by them, particularly as they were not in force at the time of taking admission? Leave is granted. The petitioners are permitted to attend the classes and. To appear in examination subject to the decision of the Court.
3. Considering the urgency of the matter the hearing may be fixed at a very early date. AA./M‑1755/S Leave granted.