2006 PLP 1182 (YLR)

TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.

Petitioner applied for admission in Hellay College of Banking and Finance University of Punjab against two disable seats. The relevant admission committee recommended two candidates namely Muhammad Asif and Malik Zafar Iqbal against those seats out of which only the former deposited dues and joined the college. The latter did not join and the seat remained vacant, although petitioner was No.1 in the waiting list against the afore-referred quota, she did not receive any intimation to join the college. Having come to know about the afore-referred situation she contacted the respondent authorities but the same was no avail and she was told that she was rather late.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Admission Policy petitioner deserves to be admitted against the afore-referred vacant seat, that the respondent authorities did not inform her is time that the second recommendee against the afore-referred disabled seat did not join that she is being deprived of her admission just on account of the fault of the College Administration and that the act of respondent besides being arbitrary in unjust and discriminatory.

3. Learned counsel for the University of Punjab relying on the comments submitted that although petitioner had a right to be admitted because she was first candidate in the waiting list but now its rather late as after admissions, the classes started as far back as in October, 2003 and even if she is given admission she would not be able to appear in the University Examination as she would not be able to fulfil the requirement of 80% lectures.

4. Heard.

5. It is conceded before this Court that petitioner had -a right to be admitted against the disabled quota after the second recommendee for the two seats did not turn up. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was ever intimated about the afore-referred development, she was never offered admission and notwithstanding the fact that the right to admission had accrued. The argument that at this belated stage if she is allowed admission she would not be able to fulfil the requirement of 80% lectures is untenable and petitioner cannot be condemned for the fault of respondent authorities. This difficulty can be resolved by the competent authority in the Punjab University if there is a provision to that effect or petitioner can appear in the supplementary examination. Even otherwise it is not denied that the petitioner has been attending the classes pursuant to the orders passed by this Court.

6. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and petitioner shall be admitted against the second reserved seat for the disabled quota on usual terms and conditions. There shall be no order as to costs. F.M./S-89/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.