2005 PLP 344 (YLR)

Brief facts out of which the present Constitutional petition arises are that the petitioner did not submit his application to secure admission in the Medical College in terms of the advertisement issued by the respondent. The petitioner submitted application before the respondent after the target date by explaining reasons in the application that he could not submit the application well in time. The respondent did not decide the application of the petitioner. Petitioner being aggrieved filed Writ Petition No.13415 of 2004, which was disposed of vide order dated 31‑8‑2004 and the respondent was directed to consider his application with due application of mind to the assertions made by the petitioner in his application sympathetically. The respondent decided the application of the petitioner vide order dated 3‑9‑2004. Petitioner being aggrieved has filed this writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has decided the application without application of mind and without observing the para meters prescribed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation vide order dated 31‑8‑2004, passed in Writ Petition No. 13415 of 2004. He further submits that the impugned order was passed by the respondent without considering the contents of the application of the petitioner and the difficulty of the petitioner is that the petitioner belongs to the rural area and did not have the facility to see the notice published by the respondent in the daily newspaper.

3. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record ourselves. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the order of the respondent dated 3‑9‑2004, to resolve the controversy between the parties:‑‑ "Reference your application dated 1‑9‑2004. As per record no application dated 26‑8‑2004, from you was ever received in this office. However, it is to inform you that the undersigned has no authority discretion to condone the delay for issuance of the Admission Packet for admission to First Year M.B.B.S./B.D.S. class of the Government Medical and Dental Colleges of the Punjab beyond the notified dates. Moreover, in your presence in my office there were a number of other candidates who A could not obtain Admission Packet for one reason or the other. The undersigned was not in a position to draw any exceptions. In view of the above the undersigned is unable to accede the request made by you." The aforesaid order clearly reveals that the respondent has decided the application in terms of the Rules and Regulations of the respondent. The petitioner's counsel failed to point out that the impugned order is in violation of the Rules and Regulations of respondent, which is condition precedent with regard to the maintainability of the Constitutional petition as the law laid down in Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore and another v. Ali Mir 1984 SCMR

433. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner has not alleged any malice against the respondent, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable as the law laid down by this Court in Saeed Nawaz v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another PLD 1981 Lahore

371. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner has not filed the application within prescribed period in the advertisement issued by the respondent, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief and this Court has no jurisdiction to extend the date fixed by the respondent. In arriving to this conclusion we are fortified by the law laid down in Dr. Haq Nawaz v. Balochistan Public Service Commission through Chairman and 2 others 1996 CLC 58 and Muhammad Zubair v. The Principal, Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab 1997 MLD

946. It is the prerogative of the respondent to fix the date, therefore, this fact brings the case in the area of policy. This Court has only jurisdiction to interpret the law and not to take the role of the D policy maker, therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the superior Courts in The State v. Zia‑ur‑Rehman and others PLD 1973 SC 49; Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Commerce and another PLD 1975 SC 667 and Zamir Ahmad Khan v. Government of Pakistan and another 1978 SCMR

327. It is pertinent to mention here that in case the respondents are directed to entertain the application of the petitioner then it will create administrative problems for the respondent, therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable and the impugned order is in accordance with law. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition is not maintainable and, is hereby dismissed in limine. S.A.K./S‑230/L Petition dismissed