1981 PLP 481 (SCMR)
EDUCATION, RAWALPINDI-Petitioner Versus SULEMAN MANSOOR AHMAD — Respondent
| Citation | 1981 PLP 481 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ CHAIRMAN, |
| Parties | EDUCATION, RAWALPINDI-Petitioner Versus SULEMAN MANSOOR AHMAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Educational institutions |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 481 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Educational institutions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 481 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ CHAIRMAN,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 481 (SCMR) (EDUCATION, RAWALPINDI-Petitioner Versus SULEMAN MANSOOR AHMAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- HaJiz S. A. Rehman, Advocate and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th March, 1981.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 26-11-1980, passed in W. P. 7777 of 1980). Examination - Change of group - Contention that respondent examinee could not have appeared for improvement of division/marks in examination for a group different from his earlier group-Authorities having allowed examinee to change his group and permitted him to appear at examination and not prevented him from doing so and no explanation given for doing so, some confusion about application of rules to a particular region, held, exists and authorities concerned having contributed to such conduct, case not fit for interference.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 26-11-1980 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a Constitutional Petition filed by the respondent was allowed. The respondent having appeared in the Intermediate Pre-Medical Group Examination secured 490 marks. He appeared in another Examination for improving his position but instead of taking the Examination for Pre-Medical Group he appeared in the Pre-Engineering Group Examination. Although he passed in the latter Examination but he was declared as having failed on account of the change of the group because as contended from the petitioner's side, the relevant rules did not permit the change. On filing of the writ petition in the High Court, interim relief was granted to the respondent to the extent that his result might be declared on the basis of which if eligible he might seek admission in the Engineering University; but without prejudice to the petitioners' plea on merits. The contention of the learned counsel, which is based on clause 2.18 of the relevant rules, is that the respondent could not have appeared for improvement of the Division Marks, in the Examination for a group different from his earlier group. The argument in so far as it goes might have some force. But we do not consider it necessary to examine it in any detail. When questioned as to why the authorities concerned permitted the respondent to take the Examination and why he was not prevented from doing so, learned counsel was unable to give any satisfactory reply. In the circumstances of this case, when as it appears from the orders passed-by the High Court, there was some confusion about the application of the Rules to a particular Region and there was also the contributory conduct of the authorities concerned, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. This petition accordingly is dismissed. Petition dismissed.