1995 PLP 824 (MLD)
BEENISH BIRLAS‑‑‑Petitioner Versus UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 824 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | BEENISH BIRLAS‑‑‑Petitioner Versus UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Educational institution‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 824 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Educational institution‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 824 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 824 (MLD) (BEENISH BIRLAS‑‑‑Petitioner Versus UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Bhatti for Petitioner.
- Raza Farooq Chaudhary for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th May, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Admission in M. A. (Applied Psychology)‑‑‑Last student granted admission in the subject had 975 marks to his credit‑‑‑Petitioner was ignored because her marks were counted at 957‑‑‑N.C.C. Certificate having not been attached with the admission Form, 20 Marks of N.C.C. were not counted in the total and if counted she was entitled to admission‑‑‑Petitioner had produced certificate of N.C.C. which was not denied‑‑‑Provisional admission granted to petitioner was affirmed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Raza Farooq Chaudhary for Respondents. Date of hearing: 17th May, 1994. The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant her admission to M. A. APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY. The petition was admitted to regular hearing and notices were sent to the respondents who have appeared and contested the petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition argued that the petitioner had 977 marks to her credit, therefore, she was entitled to admission on merits. It is added that the respondents illegally did not allow the credit of 20 marks on account of N.C.C.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner did not furnish the N.C.C. Certificate alongwith the admission form, therefore, she was not allowed 20 marks in accordance with the formula to work out the merit for admission.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner replied that according to the admission form the petitioner was not required to append the N.C.C. Certificate alongwith the admission form. The arguments are summed up with the submission that in any case the petitioner had completed her First Year, therefore, it would be too harsh not to regularise her admission.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the parties and gone through the record. The last student granted admission to M.A. APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY had 975 marks to his credit. The petitioner was ignored because her marks were counted at
957. If 20 marks of N.C.C. which is her legitimate right, are added then the petitioner had 977 marks to her credit. therefore, was entitled to admission. The petitioner has produced the certificate of N.C.C. which is not denied. It seems that the petitioner was not allowed admission inadvertently.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that this writ petition is allowed. The result is that the Provisional Admission granted to the petitioner is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. AA./B‑138/L Petition accepted.