1980 PLP 1400 (CLC)

KARIMULLAH DURRANI, J.-The petitioners M,/s. Mohammad Ashraf son of Saimal Khan and Syed Abad son of Taj Mohammad of Mohrnand Agency now residents of Nothia Jadid, Peshawar and belonging to the Federally Administered Tribal Area hereinafter called F A T A appeared in the F. Sc. (Pre-Engineering) examination in. 1978 Session and obtained 604 and 596 marks, respectively. They applied for admission into a Faculty of Engineering. either in Peshawar or Lahore for their admission against the seats reserved for the students from the tribal area administered by the Provincial or Federal Government. These reserved seats are 20 in number out of which twelve are supplied by the Faculty of Engineering of Peshawar University and the remaining 8 by the University of Engineering and Technology, Punjab, Lahore The break up of these seats is as follows :- (a) In the Faculty of Engineering, Peshawar University :-

1. Electrical Engineering 3

2. Mechanical Engineering 4

3. Civil Engineering 2

4. Agriculture 1

5. Mining 2 Total : 12 (b) University of Engineering and Technology, Punjab, Lahore

1. Civil Engineering 4

2. Electrical Engineering 2

3. Mechanical Engineering 2 Total:- 8 The petitioners while individually applying for any of these seats gave their preference for Civil Engineering. The procedure for the nomination of the candidates for the above mentioned reserved seats is that the applications are processed by the Commissioner of the respective Division, who forwards the applications from the FATA to Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Estates and Frontier regions through the Secretary and the applications from FATA (Provincially Administered Tribal Area) to the Government of N.-W. F. P. through Secretary Home Department. The candidates are then selected for admission against the reserved seats in different subjects by the respec tive Governments and the final approved list reaches the Faculty University concerned through Commissioner of the Divisions. The prospectus of the Faculty of Engineering, University of Peshawar in its Chapter on Alloca tion of Seats clearly provides that the Commissioner Peshawar Division will nominate the selected candidates from the Tribal area of Peshawar Division and similarly nomination of selected candidates from the Tribal area of D. I. Khan shall be done by the Commissioner of that Division. The petitioners alleged that before the final allocation of seats, they were interviewed by the Selection Committee sitting at the Home Department of the Provincial Government to whom they had clearly indicated their options for Civil Engineering, but when finally the names of the candidates for admission to the Engineering colleges reached their respective institutions the petitioners found that they have been admitted to the subject of Electrical Engineering in the Faculty of Engineering, University of Peshawar and- that respondents Nos. 8 to 10 were selected for Civil Engineering course at the University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore while respondents Nos. 6 and-7 were nominated for the Civil Engineering branch for the Faculty of Engineering, University of Peshawar. The petitioners also contend that with the exception of respondent No. 6 all those selected candidates who have been impleaded as respondents had lesser marks than those obtained by the petitioners. It is further alleged that the petitioners made their representation to the authorities concerned for obtaining seats for tree studies of the subject of Civil Engineering either at .Peshawar or at Lahore but failed in their attempt. It may be pointed out here that the petitioners thereafter took up their studies in the subject of Electrical Engineering of the Faculty of Engineering, University of Peshawar and that by now they have completed one academic session in the said subject and so have respondents Nos. 6 and 7 who had been nominated for the Civil Engineering branch of the said faculty of Engineering. The petitioners have assailed by this Constitutional petition their nomination for the Electrical Engineering mainly on the ground that it was incumbent upon the authorities concerned under the Rules to have given preference reserve Engineering University Peshawar were reserved one each for the students from FATA and PAT(Provincially Administered Tribal Area). It was for this reason that out of these two seats was allocated to Mr. Gul Zair, a student from the Provincially Administered Tribal Area although he had secured lesser more than the petitioners in the F. Sc. examination. As this seat was not mean for a student hailing from FATA no exception can be taken to the allocation in question. As far as the allocation of the solitary available seat in the same subject to respondent No. 6, Mr. Hidayatullah is concerned, we find that this respondent also hails from FATA and has secured 667 marks in the F. Sc. examination which are definitely more than those secured by the two petitioners. The petitioners could therefore have no cause of grievance against the selection of respondent No. 6 for the available seal as he deserved the same in the order of merits. Thus finding the main ground of the attack of the petitioners on the selection without any substance, we would now, proceed with the other contention, i.e. disregard of the option of the petitioners in allocation of seats to them to the Electrical Engineering. The learned counsel for the petitioners in spite of his best efforts could not: bring to light any rule making in incumbent upon the authorities concerned to allocate seat to an applicant for the reserved quota according to his choice in a particular branch o study in the engineering science. We have been informed at the bar that the authorities concerned endeavoured to, keep the selection of the candidate for a seat as near his choice as was possible by the availability of the seat in a particular subject. When the seats in particular subject are filled by the allocation, the remaining candidates are accommodated in . any other subject of Engineering where a seat might be available. There is no hard and fast rule anywhere laid down which makes it incumbent upon the selectors to keep the selection in a particular subject strictly in the order of merits. The order of merits only comes into play during the stage of the process of the applications when out of all the applicants for the reserved seats the required number of candidates is chosen in accordance with the number of the seats available from the top downwards in the order of merits. It is not possible to so further stretch the rule of allocation of seats in the order of merits as to apply the same m a subject-revise manner. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the following paragraph appearing in the prospectus of the Faculty of Engineering University of Peshawar under the heading System of Admission in Engineering Department :- "The admission committee will admit after due scrutiny of the applications from the students on the basis of merit in the engineer ing science which the applicant seeks to study.," But this rule governs the admission in the Departure to concerned by to Faculty. themselves against the general seats available To the institution for the subject concerned. The seats reserved as special quotas for different categories of candidates cannot be governed by this rule for the obvious reason that merit plays little part in allocation of these seats which go to those who could not obtain a seat in open competition with the general candidates and to a certain sex, community and are given preferential treatment for the incidence of belonging or area. In the instant case the seats claimed being those falling in reserved quota were not to be filled by the University or the Faculty concerned but by the Administrative bodies of the respective areas which are not subjected to these prospectus. The rule under discussion thus does not come to the aid of the petitioners. There is yet another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of The petitioners as well as respondents Nos. 6 to 10 have at the time of the hearing of this petition almost completed their academic year in the respective subjects. The relief sought by the petitioners, even if could be granted, would only result in disturbing the academic careers of all con cerned. Even the petitioners even if could be granted, would only result in disturbing the academic careers of all concerned. Even the petitioners would be losing a precious year of the tenure of their desired course of studies, which could be very difficult, if not almost impossible for them to make up. Similarly, if any two of the respondents concerned are made to give up their seats for the petitioners and change subjects with them it would not only be completely ruinous to them but will also be so unjust as could never be warranted in the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. We put a pertinent question to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to what would be the course left open to the authorities concerned when almost all or a greater number of candidates than the available seats opt for one single particular subject. Obviously all of such candidates could not be awarded the subject of their choice and therefore the rest would either be accommo dated in other branches of study of the same Science or left with no seat. The learned counsel had nothing to suggest for meeting this situation. Had it been a case of substitution of a branch of science to another such as medical for engineering and/or humanities for Home economics, then only the question would arise that a candidate has been deprived of his option. The option for a particular branch of engineering in such a case as this could only mean option for admission in any branch of this particular science. The candidates applying for seats under special or reserved quotas could not by necessity have that freedom of exercise of option as c the others competing for general seats in the order of merit could have. In view of the above discussion, we find no substance in this petition which fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. S. A. H. Petition dismissed.