1986 PLP 2585 (CLC)
ANBAR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus UNIVERSITY OF SIND through its
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2585 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zahoorul Haq and |
| Parties | ANBAR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus UNIVERSITY OF SIND through its |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2585 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 2585 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Zahoorul Haq and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2585 (CLC) (ANBAR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus UNIVERSITY OF SIND through its). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Ali Sheikh for Petitioner.
- Kishin Chand for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Habibullah Samo for Respondent No. 3. Date of hearing: 15th April, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Educational institutions‑‑ ‑‑‑ Admission to various disciplines of session‑‑Requirement of admission for candidates qualifying either in 1984 or 1985‑‑Petitioner having qualified in 1984, held, could not be refused admission merely because for not appearing in‑examination in 1983. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Educational institution‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Candidate applying for admission having requisite qualification, held, could not be refused admission merely on ground of non‑appearing examination in previous year and instead appearing in current year Such candidate having requisite qualifications, held, could not be refused admission‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could be invoked where candidate in spite of requisite qualifications was refused admission [Educational institutions.
Judgment & Decree
2. Petitioner's contention is that hp appeared in the examination of Sind Board of Technical Education for session 1983 and secured 2344 marks and was placed in first division.
3. The petitioner has produced a circular of the University of Sind which placed the Associate Engineers of Diploma as equivalent to F.A. & F.Sc
4. The respondent No. 3 had passed her examination iii `t e F.A. F.Sc. from the Board of Intermediate Examination at Hyderabad and she was also placed in first division but her percentage of mark was 64.3% while the' percentage of the petitioner is 67%. To that extent there is no dispute.
5. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 had both applied for the same term of 1985‑86.
6. Respondent No.3 was admitted to the B.B.A. Class while the petitioner was not given admission on the ground that he was not eligible. Therefore, the petitioner filed this petition.
7. The written objection of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have taken the position that the petitioner had appeared for the 1982‑83 session and that it was an annual examination of 1983 and, therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for admission. We enquired from the respondent's counsels if the Sind Board of Technical Education had held any other examination in 1984 and in fairness to them we state that they had candidly replied in the negative. That being the position, there is no doubt left that the petitioner had passed his examination in 1984 and the same is supported by .the certificate to that effect which shows that the examination of the petitioner was held in March, 1984.
8. The respondents have taken' their stand on the Circular, dated 16‑12‑1985 where it has been stated that last date for receipt of application forms for admission to various disciplines of the session 1983‑84/1985‑‑86 is extended upto 31‑12‑1985. it is further stated in Part‑II of this advertisement that applicants who have passed H.S.C.‑Il examination of 1984 as‑ well as in 1985 are eligible to apply for admission to B.Sc. and B.B.A. etc. .
9. The contention of Mr. Kishanchand and Mr. Habibullah Samo in this regard was that the University of Sind by this advertisement meant that it was intended to qualify only those persons who had taken their session in 1983‑84 and had appeared in the annual examination of 1984 or 1985 that they could alone apply for admission. Their contention Is that since the petitioner had not given the examination in 1983, therefore, he was not qualified to be a candidate. We are unable to find any substance in this contention of the respondents. Evidently their advertisement does not contain arty qualification in respect of the session which the qualified person has examination of 1984 or 1985, and appeared in the examination of 1984. Therefore, he has obviously qualified to apply for the admission for the relevant year.
10. Another submission of the counsel of the respondent No. 3 is that it is only the candidates who have passed H.S.C.‑II examination as held by Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad and Sukkur who alone could compete for this admission. We must, however, point out that the University of Sind has not taken up that stand and in our view University of Sind is quite right, if. It is an admitted position that there is no Board of Technical Education in Hyderabad and Sukkur and there is only one Board of Technical Education for Sind which holds the examinations for the entire area of Sind and the petitioner being a student of Government Technical College, Hyderabad, had appeared in the examination and, therefore, the University authorities had taken the correct view that the petitioner who had qualified from the Sind Board of Technical Education but were domiciled in Larkana is entitled to apply.
12. This is the only reasonable interpretation which could be taken in respect of this matter.
13. The interpretation put forward by the respondent No. 3 would result in the disqualification of all the Associate Diploma Engineers who have qualified from the Sind Board of Technical Education in spite they being the residents of places in Hyderabad and Sukkur Divisions.
14. The result, therefore, is that the petitioner was qualified to be taken up as B . B . A student and since he had the greater number of marks as opposed to respondent No.3 he should have been first considered and admitted and we, therefore, direct that he should be admitted in the B . B . A . Class of respondent No. 2 for. the relevant session.
15. We are satisfied to learn that the respondent No. 2 would be able to accommodate respondent No. 3 as she is already admitted in that case. The petition is, therefore, allowed in the above terms. H. B . T . Petition allowed.