1994 PLP 2175 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 1st February, 1994. MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑This intra‑Court appeal under section 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is directed against judgment dated 9‑5‑1993 passed by 1~arned Single Judge by which Writ Petition No. 443 of 1993 filed by the appellant has been dismissed in limine.

2. The disputh relates to admission in MA. Socialogy, University of the Punjab against reserve seats of siudents‑nominees from other provinces.

3. According to the procedure the students against the said reserve seats were to be recommended by the Government of the Province concerned which were to be routed. through the Federal Government. The recommendations after the approval of Federal Government were to be sent to the Provincial Government and thereafter it was to be forwarded to the University.

4. As regards respondent No. 4 the recommendation of N: W.F.P. Government was received by the Provincial Government on 6‑10‑1992 which was forwarded to. the University of the Punjab by the Provincial Government on 15‑10‑1992. It was received by the Vice=Chancellor on 21‑10‑1992 which was forwarded to the Socialogy Department on 26‑10‑1992 and the admission against the said reserve seat was finalized on 28=10‑1992 as a consequence of which respondent No. 4 was admitted. 5: The, appellant challenged the admission granted to respondent No. 4 by filing Writ Petition No. 443 of 1993. Her case was that the admission of respondent No. 4 had not been finalized before 3‑11‑1992 in any case and before that recommendation from the N.‑W.F.P. Government regarding the appellant had also been received in the office of the Vice‑Chancellor on 21‑10‑1992 and her case was not considered and if considered she having better position on merits as compared to respondent No. 4 was entitled to get admission in preference to the later.

6. Prof. Dr. Muhammad Anwar, Head of the Department of MA. Socialogy, University of the Punjab,. Lahore was summoned by the learned Single Judge who informed the Court that the admission of respondent No. 4 had been finalized on 28‑10‑1992 and at that time the recommendation as regards the appellant had not been received in the department. The writ petition was dismissed in limine, through the impugned order.

7. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that since 'the N: W.F.P. Government sent the recommendations as regards appellant directly to the university which according to the procedure should have been routed through the Federal Government which was required to recommend her name to the provincial Government through which the same was to be sent to the University, therefore, the said recommendation was sent to the Provincial Government for onward transmission to the Federal Government, as such, even if before 28‑10‑1992 the same had been received in the office of the Vice Chancellor it was not proper and her case could not be considered. In this view of the matter even if the plea raised by the appellant that her recommendations had been received by the Vice‑Chancellor on 21‑10‑1992 as alleged is accepted for the sakc of argument the same did not create any right in her favour for consideration of her case as against respondent No. 4 about whom recommendations had been received through proper channel backed by, the recommendations of the Federal Government as also the Provincial Government. We are not persuaded to accepted argument that the admission of respondent No. 4 had not been finalized on 28‑10‑1992, for there is no reason to disbelieve Prof. Dr. Muhammad Anwar. Merely because the recommendations regarding appellant was sent to the Federal Government by the Vice‑Chancellor subsequent to the said date did not constitute expressly or impliedly an admission that the admission of respondent No. 4 had not yet been concluded. Since the recommendations could not be sent to Vice Chancellor directly by the N: W.F.P. Government, therefore, it was rightly sent to Federal Government not with the intention. to reopen the matter of admission but because the Vice‑Chancellor could not keep the same with him.

8. Learned counsel for appellant has failed to convince us that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from any illegality. The appeal has no force which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1689/L Appeal dismissed.