1998 PLP 556 (SCMR)
THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through the Secretary, Health Department, Lahore and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus UMM‑E‑RUBEH and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 556 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hafeez Memon and Muhammad Ilyas, JJ |
| Parties | THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through the Secretary, Health Department, Lahore and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus UMM‑E‑RUBEH and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Educational institution‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 556 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Educational institution‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 556 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Hafeez Memon and Muhammad Ilyas, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 556 (SCMR) (THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through the Secretary, Health Department, Lahore and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus UMM‑E‑RUBEH and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Admission to M.B.,B.S. Class of Medical College‑‑‑Admission of candidate under impugned and interim order of High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Counsel for petitioner (Province) had stated that candidate had also applied for admission to Medical College under self‑financing scheme and she had been selected for admission, which would be given to her forthwith on her paying the required fee etc. under that scheme; that in case she ultimately succeeds in Constitutional petition filed by her, she would be treated to have been admitted in Medical College on merit; that in case Constitutional petition filed by her was dismissed, she would continue to be treated as having been admitted under self‑financing scheme; that such admission would not be considered under the impugned order passed by High Court; and that such arrangement would be without prejudice to the rights of parties after disposal of Constitutional petition‑‑‑Candidate had accepted arrangement in terms of statement of counsel for Province‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal having not been pressed was disposed of in terms of statement of counsel for Province.
- Muhammad Yawar Ali, Additional Advocate‑General and Muhammad Anwar Ghuman, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Mian Fazal‑i‑Mehmood, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 10th June, 1996.
- ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J.‑‑‑Mr. Muhammad Yawar Ali, Additional Advocate‑General, Punjab, states as follows:‑‑
- 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 accepts the arrangement in the terms stated above by the learned Additional Advocate‑General.
- 3. In view of the above, the learned Additional Advocate‑General does nod press this petition. This petition is disposed of accordingly.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 8‑4‑1996, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No.5598 of 1996).
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J.‑‑‑Mr. Muhammad Yawar Ali, Additional Advocate‑General, Punjab, states as follows:‑‑ (i) That respondent No. 1, Umm‑e‑Rubeh, has also applied for admission to Medical College under self‑financing scheme and she has been selected for admission, which will be given to her forthwith on her paying the required fees, etc., under the scheme. (ii) That in case she ultimately succeeds in the writ petition filed by her, she will be treated to have been admitted in the Medical College on merit. (iii) That in case the writ petition filed by her is dismissed, she will continue to be treated as having been admitted under the self‑financing scheme. (iv) That such admission of the respondents shall not be considered as admission under the impugned interim order passed by the learned High Court. (v) That the above arrangement will be without prejudice to the rights of the parties after disposal of the writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 accepts the arrangement in the terms stated above by the learned Additional Advocate‑General.
3. In view of the above, the learned Additional Advocate‑General does nod press this petition. This petition is disposed of accordingly. A.A./P‑283/S Order accordingly.