2010 PLP 2886 (YLR)

TARIQ JAVAID, J.

The grievance of the petitioner is that she has been denied admission into engineering program being run by the respondent university. The petitioner claimed that she was entitled for admission on one out of the two seats reserved for women. In the prospectus for admission into B.Sc. Engineering for the year 2009 it was maintained by the respondents that there were two seats reserved for women, however by that time the admissions were finalized, out of the two seats reserved for women one seat was allocated to self-financing scheme. It is maintained that the seats reserved for the women quota could have not been allocated for self-financing scheme, because it was a method adopted by the Institutions for uplift and to reverse discrimination against women. That if at all any seats were to be allocated for self-financing scheme these could have either been created or in any event could have been taken from the general seats and the reserved quota for women could not be touched as it is already a special quota to reverse the gender discrimination.

2. The petitioner voiced her grievance before the Provincial Mohtasib by filling a petition before him, who concluded that the quota reserved for female students could have not been reduced and allocated for self-financing scheme and according to the Provincial Mohtasib it amounted to mal administration. Therefore, respondent No.1 was directed to hold an inquiry and make sure that in future no such illegal action is taken by him. However, no direction for admission of the petitioner was passed by the Provincial Mohtasib. Confronted with the said anomaly the petitioner maintained that once the Provincial Mohtasib came to the conclusion that the petitioner has illegally been denied admission then it was imperative for him to issue necessary direction to the respondents for the admission.

3. The respondents have filed para wise comments and seriously contested this petition.

4. It is maintained that the respondents were well within their rights in reducing the reserved quota for women and allocating the same for self-financing scheme. It was also argued that the petitioner was at serial No.6 on the merit list and even if two seats were allocated to the women, the next seat would have gone to the candidate, who was at serial No.2 and the petitioner would have not succeeded in any case. It was also argued that this petition is not maintainable as a right of appeal was provided, which the petitioner has not availed. As such the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief by this Court.

5. Heard. Record perused.

6. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 have no force. As far as revision of reserved seats on women quota is concerned, it is noticed with concern that there were only two seats for the women out of the entire class, which was already on the lower side. If the respondents had any intention to introduce the self-financing scheme they could have created new seats. The idea of accommodating the students on self-finance basis is counter productive in as much as that those students who deserved to be admitted on merit are being deprived from the admission and economically better placed candidates, who otherwise do not qualify on merit for admission are being allowed to occupy the seats. Therefore, admission of students on self-financing scheme against the general seats cannot be appreciated. Similarly, shelving the women quota also appears to be illegal. The women are already lacking their representation in the service and educational institutions. Their education is as much important as of the male students and the quotas have been provided to reverse the discrimination against the women in the society. Hence, there was no lawful justification for the respondents to allocate one seat out of the two seats reserved for women for admission on self-finance basis.

7. No doubt education can be imparted on self-finance basis. But at the same time the able and deserving students cannot be denied admissions for accommodating the rich who are otherwise lacking in ability as compared to others, with humble means. It would be appropriate to increase the number of seats to accommodate the students on self-finance scheme. But they cannot be adjusted on the general seats available in the State run educational institutions or institutions having substantial support out of the public funds, that is, taxpayers money. For the taxpayers money can only be utilized for the general good and for the education of able and deserving students. Therefore, the action taken by the respondents is illegal.

8. Similarly, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents with regard to the petitioner's being placed at serial No.6 in the merit list for candidates on the quota is concerned, it is also of no avail. The candidate on top of the list was admitted whereas the candidates at serial Nos.2 to 5 did not opt to agitate and the petitioner, who was the next candidate on the merit has assailed the admissions. Since the candidates from serial Nos.2 to 5 have not assailed the impugned action and they have not perused the right to admission, the petitioner is the only next available candidate and she is held entitled to the admission.

9. With above observations, this petition is allowed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./I-31/L Petition allowed.