1991 PLP 1962 (SCMR)
PARKASH KUMAR — Appellant Versus CHAIRMAN, SELECTION COMMITTEE, BALOCHISTAN
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1962 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry JJ |
| Parties | PARKASH KUMAR — Appellant Versus CHAIRMAN, SELECTION COMMITTEE, BALOCHISTAN |
| Primary Law | (a) Res judicata, (b) Educational institution |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1962 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Res judicata, (b) Educational institution as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1962 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1962 (SCMR) (PARKASH KUMAR — Appellant Versus CHAIRMAN, SELECTION COMMITTEE, BALOCHISTAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- SA.M. Quadri, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- Raja M. Afsar, Advocate-General, Balochistan for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
- Date of hearing: 6th June, 1991.
- SA.M. Quadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Raja M. Afsar, Advocate‑General, Balochistan for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
- 4. In the circumstances, we accept this appeal, set aside the rejection of the claim of the appellant. The learned Advocate‑General has assured us that he would be considered for admission this year without deducting any marks for the lapse of time. We hope that this undertaking will be honoured and the merit of the appellant determined accordingly.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, dated 31st October, 1990 passed in Civil Petition No.180 of 1980.
Applicability in the executive field
Correctness or alterations of executive orders, decisions or determinations could not be avoided on the ground of finality or res judicata.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Admission in Engineering College
Residence certificate earlier granted to petitioner was withdrawn on the ground that he had been studying from 7th till F.Sc. Pre-Engineering out of the Province and thus, he was not considered for admission in the previous year-- Candidate's (petitioner) application was again rejected in the next year-- Petitioner's father at the time of entry of his service was shown to be the resident of specified area so also petitioner's brothers, one of whom was admitted in Medical College and the other was recruited in service on the basis of residence in specified area
Rejection of claim of appellant to be the resident of specified area and on that basis rejection of his admission was arbitrary and unreasonable and also manifestly discriminatory
Respondents were directed to consider appellant for admission without deduction of any marks for lapse of time.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The appellant was a candidate for admission in the Balochistan Engineering College against the reserved seats of Kachhi District. He was granted a local certificate by the District Magistrate. On finding that he had been studying from 7th till F.Sc. Pre‑Engineering outside Balochistan Province at Shahdadkot in Sindh Province, he was not considered eligible in the previous year. When he applied the next year, the decision of the previous year was held to be a bark He challenged that decision in the High Court. The High Court came to the conclusion that the previous order holding the appellant to be ineligible had attained finality and operated so far as principle of it is concerned, as res judicata.
2. We had at the hearing called for the relevant records in order to ascertain the correct position and after having examined it have come to a different conclusion. In the first place, so far as the executive decisions, orders and determinations are concerned, the correction of it or alteration of it cannot be avoided on the ground of finality or res judicata.
3. We find that his father at the time of entry into service has shown his residence in Jhal Magsi. The appellant had got education in Jhal Magsi till his father got transferred from there and he had of necessity to move to Shahdad Kot where he had a relative. His brother in similar circumstances was treated as a resident of Jhal Magsi and given admission in Bolan Medical College. His another brother was recruited in service on the basis of his residence in Jhal Magsi. In the circumstances, the rejection of the claim of the appellant was arbitrary and unreasonable and also manifestly discriminatory.
4. In the circumstances, we accept this appeal, set aside the rejection of the claim of the appellant. The learned Advocate‑General has assured us that he would be considered for admission this year without deducting any marks for the lapse of time. We hope that this undertaking will be honoured and the merit of the appellant determined accordingly. AA./P‑170/S Appeal accepted.