2004 PLP 1560 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ZAKA AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, ADMISSION BOARD/ CONVENOR ADMISSION COMMITTEE,
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1560 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Jamshed Ali, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ZAKA AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, ADMISSION BOARD/ CONVENOR ADMISSION COMMITTEE, |
| Primary Law | University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore Act (V of 1974)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1560 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore Act (V of 1974)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1560 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Jamshed Ali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1560 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ZAKA AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, ADMISSION BOARD/ CONVENOR ADMISSION COMMITTEE,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioner.
- Syed Sajjad Hussain for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 31st January, 2003.
- 7. Syed Sajjad Hussain, Advocate, who appears for the respondents, has submitted that the Vice‑Chancellor, with the approval of the Chancellor had decided that aggregate adjusted marks would be 60% and, therefore, none of the two petitioners was eligible for admission. It was pointed out by him that the Balochistan authorities had recommended 11 candidates out of which only one had 86% marks while the other 10 including Muhammad Zaka Ahmad, petitioner had less than 60 % marks. However, to honour the recommendation of the Balochistan authorities it was decided to accommodate those nominees of the Balochistan Government, who had first Division in F.Sc. and that even on that criterion Muhammad Zaka Ahmad, petitioner was not entitled to admission.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.30 & 31‑‑‑Prospectus of University of Engineering and Technology Lahore, Regu lations for the Year 2003, Regln.42.4‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. l99‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑‑Admission in Uni versity of Engineering and Technology‑‑ Candidates who were nominees of Government of Balochistan were denied admission on ground that Vice‑Chancellor, with the approval of Chancellor had decided that aggregate adjusted marks by 60% and candidates who had less marks, were not eligible for admission‑‑‑Regulation No.42.2 of Prospectus of University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore for subject year, provided that the eligibility threshold for admission to said University was 50% aggregate adjusted marks whereas adjusted aggregate marks of candidates were more than 50%‑‑‑Admission to University of Engineering and Technology was governed by Regulations framed under S.30 of University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore Act, 1974 and according to subsection (2) of S.30 of said Act, Regulation would be prepared by Academic Council and would require approval of Syndicate‑‑‑Provisions of S.31 of University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore Act, 1974 had provided that procedure for adding to or amending or repealing the Statutes or Regulation would be the same as that prescribed respectively for framing or making such Statutes and Regulations‑‑‑Prospectus of University which prescribed admission procedure and eligibility threshold would be deemed to be Regulations framed under S.30 of University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore Act, 1974 and it could only be amended after following procedure prescribed in S.31 of said Act and could not be modified by any executive order or decision of Vice‑Chancellor, even with the approval of the Chancellor‑‑ High Court directed that Admission Forms of candidates would be duly processed ignoring the ,decision requiring 60% adjusted aggregate marks.
Judgment & Decree
This judgment will dispose of Writ Petition No.507 of 2003 and 20788 of 2002 as common questions of law and fact are involved in both the cases.
2. Since the parties are duly represented and have been heard at length, these two cases are being disposed of as Pacca matters.
3. Muhammad Zaka Ahmad, petitioner in Writ Petition No.507 of 2003 is contender for admission in the University of Engineering and Technology (UET), Lahore as a nominee of the Government of Balochistan. He has been denied admission on the ground that he does not possess 60 % aggregate adjusted marks.
4. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.20788 of 2002 is candidate for admission on the self‑finance basis. His application for admission has not been entertained on the ground that his aggregate adjusted marks were less than 60 % .
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.507 of 2003, submits that according to Regulation No.42.2 of the prospectus of University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore for the year 2003, the eligibility threshold for admission to the said University is 50% aggregate adjusted marks. The formula to work out the adjusted aggregate marks has also been indicated in the prospectus. He submits that the aggregate adjusted marks indicated in the recommendation of the Director of Colleges, Higher and Technical Education, Balochistan, were 49.56. However, he maintains that in accordance with formula of the U.E.T. his adjusted aggregate marks worked out to 53.70 % . It was so averred in paragraph 8 of the writ petition but has not been controverted in the report and parawise comments submitted by the respondents. In the alternative he submits that 49.56 marks indicated in the aforesaid recommendation ought to have been taken as 50 as the fraction beyond 50 counts for one full mark.
6. In Writ Petition No.20788 of 2002, the plea being raised is that the aggregate adjusted marks of the petitioner were 50.153 % and in accordance with Clause 42.2 of the prospectus he was entitled to admission in the said University.
7. Syed Sajjad Hussain, Advocate, who appears for the respondents, has submitted that the Vice‑Chancellor, with the approval of the Chancellor had decided that aggregate adjusted marks would be 60% and, therefore, none of the two petitioners was eligible for admission. It was pointed out by him that the Balochistan authorities had recommended 11 candidates out of which only one had 86% marks while the other 10 including Muhammad Zaka Ahmad, petitioner had less than 60 % marks. However, to honour the recommendation of the Balochistan authorities it was decided to accommodate those nominees of the Balochistan Government, who had first Division in F.Sc. and that even on that criterion Muhammad Zaka Ahmad, petitioner was not entitled to admission.
8. About Asmatullah Naveed, petitioner in Writ Petition No.20788 of 2002, he maintains that even on the basis of 53.143 % aggregate adjusted marks he would not be entitled to admission on merits against the seats reserved for admission on self‑finance basis.
9. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Admission to the U.E.T. governed by the Regulation framed under section 30 of the University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore Act (Punjab Act NON), 1974. According to subsection (2) of section 30, the Regulations shall be prepared by the Academic Council and require approval of the Syndicate. Section 31 of the said Act provides that "the procedure of adding to or amending or repealing the Statutes or Regulation shall be the same as that prescribed respectively for framing or making such Statutes and Regulations". The Prospectus which prescribes the admission procedure and the eligibility threshold, will be deemed to be Regulations framed under section 30 of the said Act. Therefore, it could only be amended after following the procedure prescribed in section 31 of the aforesaid Act. And could not be modified by any executive order or the decision of the Vice‑ Chancellor even with the approval of the Chancellor.
10. When questioned the learned counsel for the respondents, frankly conceded that 49.56 % adjusted aggregate marks were to be treated as 50 % although the learned counsel for the petitioner for Muhammad Zaka Ahmad, on the basis of marks in F.Sc. and the entry test demonstrated that lie had 53.075 % adjusted aggregate marks according to the formula given in the prospectus of the U.E.T.
11. In view of the above, subject to the verification of the documents of Muhammad Zaka Ahmad‑petitioner in Writ Petition No.507 of 2003, he was entitled to admission in the U.E.T. in accordance with the eligibility threshold in Regulation No.42.2, while Asmat Ullah Naveed, petitioner in Writ Petition No.20788 of 2002 was also eligible to apply for admission as he had 53.143 % adjusted aggregate marks.
12. For what has been stated above, Writ Petition No.507 of 2003 is partly allowed with the direction that his Admission Form shall be duly processed ignoring the decision requiring 60% adjusted aggregate marks. Writ Petition No.20788 of 2002 is disposed of with the direction that the application of Asmat Ullah Naveed, petitioner shall be entertained and processed on the same basis. No order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑131/L Order accordingly.