1998 PLP 1950 (CLC)

Bilal Ahmed Qazi for Petitioner. M.M. Bhatti for Respondents. This Constitutional petition has been filed by the petitioner to call in question the legality of order dated 27‑12‑1997 whereby his admission has been cancelled.

2. The petitioner's learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been victimized by the University Authorities; that the action was taken against him without giving him an opportunity of being heard; that no date was fixed by the University Authorities for submission of the Migration Certificate and that a number of other students who had not submitted their Migration Certificates were still studying in the university. ..

3. In the comments submitted by the respondents, it has been explained that the petitioner never attended the classes and due to shortage of lectures his name was struck off on 6‑12‑1997; that he filed an application within seven days to Dean of Faculty concerned f9r his re‑admission stating therein that he would be punctual in future; that on payment of fine of Rs.200 he was re‑admitted and allowed to continue studies; that the petitioner was required to produce N.O.C. from the University of Punjab alongwith his admission form till the start of classes but he did not do the needful whereupon his admission was cancelled on 27‑12‑1997; that the petitioner was responsible for creating lawlessness in the University and had abducted three students, namely, Muhammad Shehzad, Abdus Salam and Shamas Nawaz on 17‑12‑1997 whereupon an F.I.R. (No.471 of 1997) was registered against him in the Cantt. Police Station.

4. It has been clearly provided under para. No.6 (iii) of the prospectus for the Post Graduate Study Programme 1996‑97 that Migration Certificate must be produced alongwith the admission form or before the commencement of the classes. The relevant para of the prospectus is reproduced below for ready reference: "6(iii) .... Provided that the candidates who are not registered with the Islamia University, Bahawalpur shall produce the Original Migration Certificate/N.O.C. (if not already submitted) from their respective Universities/Education Boards before commencement of classes, failing which their admission may be cancelled." Therefore, while submitting his admission form the petitioner was supposed to produce original Migration Certificate/N.O.C. If for any valid reason he could not do so then it was his obligation to produce the same before the commencement of classes. Hence, no separate notice was required to be served on a student calling upon him to produce the requisite certificate. The above referred Regulation is unambiguous and every student must be conscious of the legal requirement of producing necessary certificates, at the most before commencement of the classes. On finding that a candidate has failed to do the needful, the University Authorities can cancel the admission. The authorities may, at their own option notify a date calling upon the students to submit their Migration Certificates/N.O.Cs. but this is not their obligation under the Regulations. The petitioner's allegation that a number of students who have not submitted the requisite Migration Certificate/N.O.C are still studying in the university, hardly furnishes a valid ground to strike down the impugned order on the touchstone of equality before law. The cancellation of admission of a student is discretionary with the Authorities and keeping in view the general behaviour, conduct, academic record and other circumstances, the Authorities may not cancel the admission of a student. Moreover, even if it is assumed that some students have been allowed to continue their studies in violation of the Regulations, the fundamental right regarding equality before law cannot be invoked as it would be tantamount to a claim for the same illegal treatment which has been meted out to other students. Unfortunately, the petitioner appears to have preferred politics over his studies and got involved in a criminal case on the allegation of having abducted his fellow‑students. The action taken by the University Authorities does not appear to be arbitrary or illegal, in the circumstances of the case.

5. For the foregoing reasons, do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./A‑280/L Petition dismissed.