2004 PLP 992 (CLC)

Regln. No. 13

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199-- Constitutional petition

Maintainability

Admission

Adequate alternate remedy, availability of

Effect

Objection was raised by the respondent-University that the petitioner instead of the Constitutional petition should have raised his grievance before the Appellate Admission Committee established under Regln. 13 of its Admission Regulations which provided for an adequate alternate remedy

Held, in the presence of an adequate alternate remedy the petition was liable to be dismissed. Shahid Mahmood for Petitioner. M. Tariq Rajwana for Respondent. Through this Constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has sought for his admission on Self-Finance Basis in the Electric Department of Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan.

2. Briefly it is narrated in the petition that the petitioner has finally passed his F.Sc. Examination in Pre-Engineering Science in Annual Examination of 2003 with 651 out of 1100 marks from Nishat College of Science, Multan and has collected huge money of Rs.2,50,000 for the payment of Special Admission Charges on Self-Finance Basis for the admission in the Electrical Department of Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan and after having gone through the prospectus has deposited his application admission form vide No. 12, dated 20-8-2003 alongwith pay order No.A254998 for Rs.2,50,000 that the petitioner had also obtained entry marks as' 18.8 added to his F.Sc. total marks 651 + 18.8=669.8 by for final and total 70 seats out of which 20 seats were reserved on Self-Finance Basis, that three merits lists were affixed. The 3rd and the last merit list was affixed on 10-9-2003 wherein the name of the petitioner was not mentioned; that the petitioner approached the office of the respondents-University to refund back his advanced amount of Rs.2,50,000 and was informed that if the petitioner will not insist to refund back his amount he will be accommodated by way of exercising the discretion of respondent No. 1 and six candidates were left who intentionally did not refund back their advance amount. The name of the petitioner was placed at the top of that six candidates. It is further alleged in the petition that respondent-University has accommodated rest of the 5 candidates except the petitioner and they have been allotted Roll Number from 71 to 75 in the Electrical Department of the respondents University, therefore; in the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner is also entitled to be allotted Roll Number 76 by admitting his name as successful candidate, hence this petition.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after affixation of 3rd merits list on 10-9-2003 the respondents-University has enhanced 8 seats on the basis of Self-Finance Scheme wherein the candidates have been allotted roll number who have not submitted their admission forms nor have stood for the entry test, therefore, the respondents-University deprived the petitioner from admission in the aforesaid Department. Further contended that the petitioner obtained total marks 669.8 including entry test marks and in the presence of enhancement of seats the respondents-University should allot Roll Number 76 to the petitioner.

4. On the contrary the learned counsel for the respondents University strongly repelled the contentions of the learned counsel for the, petitioner contending that the present Constitutional petition is not maintainable as such after enhancement of as many as five seats the roll numbers have been allotted to the candidates whose case was considered by the University on merits.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. It evinces from the record that though the petitioner submitted his admission form on the basis of Self-Finance Scheme and had 'also submitted pay order amounting to Rs.2,50,000, appeared in the entry test and secured total marks 669.8 yet the fact retrains that in all the merit lists affixed by the respondents-University the name of the petitioner has not been found mentioned. There is no denying the fact that subsequently as many as five seats were enhanced by the respondents-University wherein the merit of the petitioner is also not figured. The learned counsel for the petitioner went on arguing that the candidates who have been allotted roll numbers by way of enhancing the seats had not submitted their admission forms not had they stood to the entry test. In this respect the learned counsel for the respondents produced the proof of filing of admission forms as well as award list- of the entry test of the candidates who passed the entry test for the purpose of admission and obtained higher marks than the petitioner. In this view of the matter the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any legal force that the candidates who have been allotted Roll Numbers from 71 to 75 had not submitted their admission forms nor they had stood for the entry test. The learned counsel for the respondents during the course of his arguments has drawn my attention towards the fact that the instant Constitutional petition is not maintainable for the reason being that the petitioner got alternative remedy of appeal before the Admission Appellate Committee in view of the Admission Regulation No.13 of the Prospectus for the year 2003 of respondents-University and the petition is also liable to be dismissed on-this score alone.

7. In view of the above discussion, I, find no, substance in this petition which is hereby dismissed. M.A.W./W-7/L Petition dismissed.