2012 PLP 1565 (YLR)

CH. MUHAMMAD YOUNIS, J.

This order intends to dispose of Writ Petition No.13875 of 2011 and Writ Petition No.14395 of 2011 as both the petitioners are candidates for admission to the 5th reserved seat by the respondent-university for admission in Diploma in Textile Engineering (Technology) at B.Z.U. Multan.

2. The applications were invited for the category-G as five seats were reserved for the candidates holding three years diploma DTT from the respondent-university. As per advertisement/prospectus the last date for submitting application for admission was 30-9-2011, whereas the petitioner applied for admission against one not the reserved five seats on 11-10-2011. The application of the petitioner was not entertained and he was not granted admission due to the reason that he has not applied for admission within the stipulated period. The grievance of the petitioner is that the result was announced on 11-10-2011 so he could not apply for admission on 30-9-2011. The petitioner claims to have secured 5th position overall so he was entitled to be admitted against the 5th reserved seat.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-university argued that the petitioner could have applied for admission like other candidates, pending the announcement of his result, within the specified period i.e. up to 30-9-2011 but he failed to apply for admission till the last date. He rather applied 11 days later on 11-10-2011 so he was not entitled to the admission in spite of securing 5th position overall. The learned counsel contends that Hashmat Bilal the rival candidate/petitioner of Writ Petition No.14395 of 2011 had applied for admission within the stipulated period and he had also deposited the dues of the university within the time allocated for this purpose so he being placed at No.6 overall deserves to be admitted against the 5th reserved seat if Muhammad Ahsan Bhutta who claimed the 5th position is excluded due to having not applied for admission till the last date fixed for this purpose.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced from both the sides.

5. Admittedly, the respondent-university as well as the candidates have to abide by the rules of the university. The petitioner Ahsan Bhutta had not applied for admission till the last date i.e. 30-9-2011. He applied 11 days later i.e. on 11-10-2011. So he did not abide by the condition of applying up to 30-9-2011. He was rightly not considered for admission by I the respondent-university because the law helps vigilant and not the indolent. The other candidates had also applied for the said five reserved seats pending the announcement of their result and the petitioner should also have done so but he opted not to submit his admission form till the last date fixed for this purpose. So, the petitioner Ahsan Bhutta has no case on merits and his writ petition is dismissed because if his application is considered for admission it will open a new chapter and many other candidates may also take the same plea and seek admission against the said reserved seats.

6. As regards the writ petitioner Hashmat Bilal he is entitled to get admission against the 5th reserved seat because excluding Muhammad Ahsan Bhutta from the said list, the petitioner Hashmat Bilal stands at 5th position and deserves to be admitted against the said reserved seats. After dismissal of the writ petition of Muhammad Ahsan Bhutta, the respondent-university may consider the petitioner Hashmat Bilal for admission against the 5th reserved seat as he had applied in time. In case the respondent-university does not accede to the request of the petitioner Hashmat Bilal for admission against the 5th reserved seat, he may avail the alternate remedy of appeal available to him under the law.

7. With this observation, Writ Petition No.14395 of 2011 stands disposed of. K.M.Z./M-98/L Petition dismissed.