1982 PLP 608 (CLC)

The petitioners who did not find their names in the admission list, prepared by the respondent No. I, as notified on 22nd November, 1981, and as their names were not even mentioned in the waiting list issued thereafter, have filed this petition, against the rejection of their application for admission to 'B' Pharmacy Class.

2. It is contended on their behalf that as they had obtained more marks than some other admitted students and as it was an open merit contest, the University had no authority to reject their applications for the simple reason that they, in answer to column 6 meant for religion, had written 'Islam' with the words 'Ahmadi'.

3. It is to be seen that column 6 of the admission application requires of the student to give his religion. The petitioners. admittedly mentioned their religion as 'Islam' with the words 'Ahmadi' in brackets. The Admission Committee rejected the applications on the ground that the petitioners made misstatement about their religion. During the interview they were asked to correct their entries but they refused to do so. It was for this reason that their application forms were rejected.

4. The learned counsel has relied on Articles 20 and 22 read with Article 4 of the 1973 Constitution, as adopted .by Provisional Constitution Order to state that the respondents cannot compel the petitioners to write 'non‑Muslim' against the column 'Religion', particularly when they made their position very clear by showing their faith as 'Ahmadi'. He relies on Miss Rifat Parveen v. Selection Committee through Principal/Administrator, Bolan Medical College, Quetta and 7 others (P L D 1980 Quetta 10) as well as Abdur Rahman Mobashir and 3 others v. Syed Amir Ali Shah Bokhari and 4 others (P L D 1978 Lah. 113) in this regard. Raliance was also placed on Article 20(3)(6). .

5. According to para. 2 of the P. C. O. 1981, Articles 20 and 22 have not been adopted in it. The above argument thus has no force. It is to he noted further that it is expressly provided in Article 1‑A(b) of the P. C. O. 1981, that 'Ahmadis' are non‑Muslims. The petitioners, therefore, flouted this constitutional provision by writing `Islam' against that column. They were given an opportunity to amend the reply but their refusal worsened the situation further. The acceptance of that situation by the University would have meant that it was a party to that violation. Their conduct therefore, entitled the University not to accept an application, which on the face of it violated and ridiculed a constitutional provision. The conduct of the petitioners also showed the indiscipline. 1, therefore, find no justification to interfere with the order of the University in view of the petitioners' conduct.

6. The learned counsel then submitted that soliciting such an infor mation, in an open merit admission contest, was uncalled for as that information did not materially affect the admission process. According to him, no cognizance could be taken of the same in view of para. 5 of the General Directions attached at the end of the application form. 7. 1 need not go into the wisdom of the contents of the form and must presume that it had a purpose behind. In any case, they were asked their religion which they should have replied in accordance with the Consti tution. They cannot expect the authorities to connive at unconstitutional replies. Again, they have not been denied admission that they belong to a particular faith or sect. In fact their application forms were rejected because of the unconstitutional stand taken up by them,

8. Be that as it may, this Court will not condone the situation where the petitioners try to settle a very sensitive issue through the University or this Court. They are rather obliged to act in accordance with the Constitu tion as long as those provisions stand. In view of the above, I ,do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine. S. A. H Petition dismissed.