PLD 1995

P L D 1995 Lahore 626 (PLP)

KANIZ FATIMA ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB‑‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Decided Date
Writ Petition No.10853 of 1995, decided on 24th Septembttr,1995.
Honorable Judges
Mrs. Fakltnin Nisa 10okhar, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P L D 1995 Lahore 626 (PLP)
Forum / Court
Bench Members Mrs. Fakltnin Nisa 10okhar, J
Parties KANIZ FATIMA ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB‑‑‑Respondent
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1995 Lahore 626 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1995 Lahore 626 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Mrs. Fakltnin Nisa 10okhar, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1995 Lahore 626 (PLP) (KANIZ FATIMA ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • M. Hanif Khatana for Petitioner.
  • Fozia Saleemi, Principal,. Government College of Education for Women, Lahore with Muhammad Bashir, A.A.‑G., Punjab for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

Educational institution‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Admission‑‑‑Head of the Institution in the matter of admission is obliged to be judicious, fair and impartial and not to obstruct the way of a just and fair right of a candidate coming up to the required merit on mere technicalities or error which could be easily removed‑‑‑Social justice and equity call for unqualified response to fundamental acrd civil rights which are equal for privileged and unprivileged classes in the Society ‑‑‑Educational institutions being sacred must pave the way for those who purely come on merits without a backing or a push from political masters.

Judgment & Decree

This matter is considered as an admitted case.

2. Petitioner's grievance is that she in response to the advertisement in the newspaper submitted her application for admission to B.Ed. in Government Educational College for Women. Lahore, She appended all other certificates alongwith a certificate issued by the Headmaster, Government High School, Shakargarh to the effect that petitioner's father is a Class-IV employee (waterman) in the Government High School, Shakargarh. The petitioner secured first division in Matric, second division in F.A. and second division in B.A. by meeting all the difficult circumstances. According to her she secured 474 marks after her interview but was not considered in the quota specified for the daughters of the Government employees for the reason that the required certificate was issued by the Headmaster of the school whereas the same was to be issued by the District Education Officer of the District. She further submits that she gave an application on 28-5-1995 to be reconsidered in the quota meant for the daughters of the Education Employees but the same was submitted to the Principal for condoning the error of not producing the certificates duly signed by the District Education Officer. .,

3. The parawise comments received on behalf of the Principal, Government College of Education, Lahore are received. She is also present in person. She has submitted in the parawise comments that the petitioner was not considered for admission against the quota meant for daughters of the employees of Education Department due to the following reasons:-- (1) The petitioner did not apply for the same. It was required to mention the specific quota for which the candidate was applying with red ink at the space provided for the purpose on the admission form and her certificate was not duly countersigned by the District Education Officer (2) A notice was displayed informing the candidates that if they have applied for more than one category then they have to appear for interview before all the Committees concerned and the petitioner did not appeal for interview before the Committee for the purpose. On Court asking she conceded that the petitioner having secured 474 marks could be easily considered in the special seat if she had mentioned in her application with red ink (KHASUSI KOTA) as in the quota of the employees of the Education Department 12 candidates were taken. The girl toping the list secured 524.marks and the second one had secured 520 marks. Both these girls later on did not deposit the fee. So their seats were fulfilled subsequently and in this way the last candidates securing 437 and 431 marks have been considered for admission. She has also placed the form submitted by the petitioner where her domicile is shown to be from Gujranwala but she has not written from what quota she is applying for admission and this admission in view of the respondent's view is a fatal one. ? 4.?? 1 have perused the application form. The petitioner has although not replied the column (KHASUSI KOTA) but in her application she has written the post of her father as "waterman" in the Government High School, ??????? Shakargarh and she has also appended the certificate from the School ??????? Headmaster. along with this application. She was given 10 marks for her first ?????? division in Matric, 7 marks for second division in FA. and 7 marks for second division in BA. and she was given 20 marks on the interview which overall shows that she is hardworking, brilliant student and possesses good educational record. This is very unfortunate that the petitioner was ignored purely. on the"; pretext that the certificate appended with the form was from a Headmaster and not from the District Education Officer and purely on technical error that she did not tick mark on (KHASUSI KOTA) in presence of her application for consideration in that quota. The Principal being a matron of an educational institute could have taken a just and fair view of the matter and could have ?? easily observed when a candidate is appending a certificate from the Headmaster that she is the daughter of a low category employee. This fact ???? could have been easily verified after perusing her form where she is mentioned as daughter of a waterman. The petitioner could also be directed, by ; the respondent. to produce the same at a later stage.

5. So far as the special seats are n concerned these are meant for the special purpose for which these are created and she being on the second top of the merit list prepared finally by the respondent is certainly not to be ignored for an omission or technicality. ??????

6. Social justice and equity walk together to ensure unqualified response to fundamental and civil rights. These are equal for privileged and unprivileged class in Pakistan. Educational institutions are sacred and these must pave the way for those who purely come on merits without a backing or a push from political masters.

7. In the present hard circumstances for a daughter of a waterman in an educational institute with other family members, lacking all sorts of financial means, outdated manners of life and extreme hard circumstances the petitioner has sought knowledge and excelled herself without any backing. She has the right of further education to her full development of personality. It is the duty of each Muslim man and woman to seek knowledge. Right of education also i casts an obligation upon the respondent to be judicious, fair and impartial and not to obstruct the way of the just and fair right of a candidate coming up to the required merit on mere technicality or error which can be easily removed.

8. Therefore, in view of the substantial justice I accept this petition. However, it is observed that if all B.Ed. seats are fulfilled the petitioner be allowed to sit as a provisional candidate and her admission directed to be accepted by the respondent to allow her to continue as a provisional candidate for B. Ed. classes. .

9. There shall be no order as to costs. M.B.A./K-210/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.