1998 PLP 1924 (CLC)

Abdul Qadar Khattak for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th March, 1998. JAWAID NAWAZ KHAN GANDAPUR, J.‑‑‑ Briefly stated the facts of the case in hand are that the petitioner, who belongs to District Zhob of Balochistan Province, after having passed his F.Sc. (Pre‑Engineering) applied to the Government of Balochistan for admission in N.‑W.F.P. University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar against one of the seats reserved for Balochistan students. The petitioner, after having competed with many applicants and after having fulfilled the requisite condition, was selected for admission in the first year engineering (mechanical) alongwith five others. Resultantly the petitioner, alongwith others, was nominated and referred to the University of Engineering and Technology for regular admission. The Director of Education, Government of Balocl:istan, also sent the documents/papers of the selected candidates, including the petitioner, to the said University and the petitioner was directed to report for admission, against one of the reserved seats, directly to the University of Engineering and 'technology vide: letter, dated 12‑I‑1998 ("Annexure 'C'). It has been alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner when reported to the respondents for admission was refused admission on the ground that he had less marks than 60 per cent. and, therefore, he was not eligible for admission. Information to this effect was also sent to the Director of Education, Government of Balochistan; that the Director of Education, vide: his letter, dated 21‑1‑1998 insisted for the admission of the petitioner and another student, namely, Zafarullah as both of them had been nominated by the Government of Balochistan for the reserved seats. This letter was also followed by another letter addressed to respondent No.2 by the Secretary to Government of Balochistan, Education Department, wherein the following recommendations were made:‑‑‑

(2) In this regard it is pointed out that for our reserved seats in N.‑W.F.P., University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar, the option lies with Government of Balochistan, and we have accordingly determined the merit of Mr. Sahir Inam and Zafarullah through a Selection Committee on merit basis amongst those who applied for the said reserved seats. It may be further pointed out that according to the Prospectus of University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar, Chapter (6) pages 74-75, the undersigned/Secretary Education, Government of Balochistan, has to nominate the candidates for the said seats. It does not provide any rider and accordingly the six students were selected on merits bass from amongst the applicants. It may also be appreciated that Balochistan Province being the most backward area, we could only select those boys on merit basis from amongst the numerous applicants. I believe the rider of the 60% is meant for the students of N.‑W.F.P. where Education is developed and competition is tough and has not to do with reserved seats. (3) It is, therefore, requested that Sahir Inam son of Inamullah and Zafarullah son of Abdul Rauf have been properly selected for the six reserved seats in N.‑W.F.P 'University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar alongwith four others by Government of Balochistan and may be admitted accordingly."

2. Since respondent No.l was adamant in admitting the petitioner as prayed for, therefore, having no other adequate and efficacious remedy available to him, the petitioner has knocked at the door of this Court for the redress of his grievance by filing the Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

3. Respondents Nos. l to 3 were directed to furnish their parawise comments. The needful was accordingly done.

4. The contesting respondents submitted/stated in their written comments that the Government of Balochistan while nominating the petitioner had failed to notice, inadvertently or otherwise, that the petitioner was not at all eligible for admission in the B.Sc. (Mechanical Engineering) Session 1997‑98, In this respect it was alleged that the Government of Balochistan was informed about the policy of the Government of N.‑W.F.P., regarding the admission vide: Memo. No.6540/14/Acad., dated 4‑10‑1997. The respondents further submitted that since the petitioner had not obtained 60% marks, required for admission in accordance with the provision of the Prospectus, therefore, he was not ' considered for admission.

5. Mr. Fazal Elahi Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abdul Qadir Khattak, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents, present and heard. The material placed on file perused carefully.

6. It may be stated at the very outset that the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to convince us that the petitioner has been refused the admission wrongly. There is nothing on the file to suggest, even remotely, that the petitioner was treated with discrimination. The petitioner admittedly failed to fulfil the criteria/prerequisite for eligibility for admission and it was for this reason that he was refused admission. In the circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the order vide which the petitioner was refused admission is either arbitrary or perverse and, therefore, liable to be struck down.

7. Additionally, it may be mentioned, that before a person is permitted to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, discretionary in nature, under Article 199 of the Constitution, he has to prove that the impugned order is either illegal, without lawful authority, without jurisdiction or in any manner, tainted with malice. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to convince us that the impugned order is either illegal, without jurisdiction or tainted with' malice.

8. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that this writ petition is without any substance. The same is accordingly dismissed alongwith civil miscellaneous H. B. T./118/P???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.