2007 PLP 132 (CLC)
ARSLAN AZIZ — Petitioner Versus BAHAUDDIN ZAKRIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN through Vice-Chancellor and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 132 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ARSLAN AZIZ — Petitioner Versus BAHAUDDIN ZAKRIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN through Vice-Chancellor and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Educational institution |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 132 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Educational institution as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 132 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 132 (CLC) (ARSLAN AZIZ — Petitioner Versus BAHAUDDIN ZAKRIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN through Vice-Chancellor and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Imran Khalid and Sh. Muhammad Sarfraz Hussain for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Rafiq Rajwana and Muhammad Tariq Rajwana, Legal Advisor B.Z.U. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Admission in B.B.A.(Hons), B.B.A.(I.T.)
Candidate who secured 80% marks in his `A' Level, appeared in entry test, but his result was not declared and he was informed that since the equivalence certificate was not appended by him, his result was not declared
No requirement existed in the Prospectus or in the application form for providing equivalence certificate from "IBCC"
Candidate, however had provided equivalence certificate to the authorities and had appended general certificate of education from the University of Cambridge with the admission form showing percentage secured by him
Counsel for the authorities was unable to make statement as to whether the candidate otherwise qualified for admission on merit in the University
Authorities were directed by High Court to admit candidate in the University, if he qualified on merit and fulfilled other requirements prescribed by the University.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J.
The petitioner applied for admission in B.B.A. (Hons), B.B.A. (I.T.) in I.M.S. The petitioner having secured 80% marks in. his A-level, appeared in the entry test held on 9-9-2006 under Roll No.M-1057, however, his result was not declared. The petitioner inquired and he was informed that since the equivalence certificate was not appended with his application as such his result has not been declared.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no requirement for providing equivalent certificate from IBCC in the prospectus nor in the application form. The petitioner has now provided the respondents the equivalence certificate but they have declined to declare the result of the entry test and to admit him in the University. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that the petitioner did not give the details of the mark secured by him in the admission form. He urged that the petitioner was to submit the equivalence certificate upto 11th September, 2006 as the final merit list was to be displayed on 13-9-2006. After the declaration of the merit list petitioner cannot be accommodated.
3. Report and parawise comments have been submitted by the respondents. I have gone through the relevant record, the parawise comments and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. There is no requirement. in the prospectus or in the application form for providing equivalence certificate from IBCC. Annexure "R/1" appended with the comments bears the noting that the equivalence certificate from the IBCC was to be provided. It bears the date as 11-9-2006 but there is nothing on the record as to when and whether it was conveyed to the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner has provided equivalence certificate to the respondents. As far as the other contention that the percentage of the marks has not been entered in the admission form suffice to stay that the petitioner has appended general certificate of education from the University of Cambridge with the admission form showing the. percentage secured by him. The argument of the learned counsel has no force. Learned counsel for the respondents is unable to make statement as to whether the petitioner otherwise qualifies for admission on merit in the University. In this view of the matter this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to admit the petitioner in the University if he qualifies on merit and fulfils other requirements prescribed by the University. H.B.T./A-197/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.