2004 PLP 342 (YLR)
BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE ANTS SECONDARY EDUCATION, GUJRANWALA through Chairman and 2 others — Appellants Versus AYESHA MARYAM — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 342 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Ijaz Ahmad and Bashir A. Mujahid, JJ |
| Parties | BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE ANTS SECONDARY EDUCATION, GUJRANWALA through Chairman and 2 others — Appellants Versus AYESHA MARYAM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 342 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 342 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Ijaz Ahmad and Bashir A. Mujahid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 342 (YLR) (BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE ANTS SECONDARY EDUCATION, GUJRANWALA through Chairman and 2 others — Appellants Versus AYESHA MARYAM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sheikh Shahid Waheed for Appellant.
- Mian Waheed-ud-Din for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.l99
Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Scope
High Court has ample jurisdiction to look into the subsequent events at the time of deciding the cases. Nasir Jamal's case 1990 CLC 1069 and Amina Begum's case PLD 1978 SC 220 ref.
S.3
Judgment of the Single Judge was not in accordance with the dictum as laid down by the Supreme Court and. as such was not approved in Intra-Court Appeal. Nawab Ali's case 2002 SCMR 1085; Salma Afroz's case PLD 1992 SC 263; Saima Zaid's case 1996 SCMR 676 and Tahir Saeed Qureshi's case 1996 SCMR 1872 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Learned counsel of the respondent under instructions of the original counsel submits that during the pendency of the appeal the respondent has passed the final M.B.,B.S. Examination from Punjab University. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record ourselves. The respondent is well within her right to secure an original result card from the appellant/Board in terms of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following j4dgments:-- Samar Pervez's case PLD 1971 SC
838. Faiza Malik's case PLD 1992 SC
324. It is also settled principle of law that this Court has ample jurisdiction to look into the subsequent events at the time of deciding the cases as the law laid down by the Division Bench of Karachi High Court and Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgInents:- Nasir Jamal's case 1990 CLC 1069. Amina gegum's case PLD 1978 SC
220. It is admitted fact that the respondent has passed the final examination of M.B.,B.S., therefore, she is entitled to get the certificate from the Punjab University and the question of obtaining admission in Medical College has no relevancy in view of the law laid down in the following judgments:-- Abdul Janan's case PLD 1996 SC 709; Khawaja Muhammad Yousaf's case 1999 SCMR 1516; Nawab Ali's case 2002 SCMR 1085. In view of the aforesaid circumstances there is no live issue remains to be decided as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in case titled Disciplinary Committee of the University of the Punjab v. Malik Abdul Majid 1984 SCMR 1302. Even otherwise the judgment of the learned Single Judge is not in accordance with the dictum as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- Salma Afroz's case PLD 1992 SC 263; Saima Zaid's case 1996 SCMR 676; Tahir Saeed Qureshi's case 1996 SCMR 1872. Therefore, the law laid down by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment is not approved which runs counter to the principles already laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments. M.B.A./B-179/L Order accordingly.