1986 PLP 160 (MLD)
ABDUL JABBAR — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SIND through Secretary, Department of Health, Karachi and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 160 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Haider Ali Pirzada, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL JABBAR — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SIND through Secretary, Department of Health, Karachi and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Educational institution |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 160 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Educational institution as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 160 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Haider Ali Pirzada, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 160 (MLD) (ABDUL JABBAR — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SIND through Secretary, Department of Health, Karachi and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Rahim Kazi and A.F.M. Mokarim for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, A.A.-G. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th May, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9--Admission in Medical College--Refusal--Grounds--Petitioner who otherwise was eligible to be admitted in Medical College was declined to be admitted simply on ground that petitioner's - father's domicile certificate did not contain name of petitioner--Domicile of petitioner's father admittedly was issued when petitioner was not even born--Petitioner's name thus could not be included in such domicile--Petitioner complied with requirement and rule of prospectus as he had produced his father's domicile as well as his own separate domicile--College Authorities, held, were not justified in refusing admission to petitioner on that ground.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑Petitioner through this petition has prayed for the following reliefs. (a.) The refusal of admission be declared to be without lawful authority, void and of no legal effect. (b) The petitioner be ordered to be admitted in the 1st Year M.B.,B.S. Classes of 1983‑84 at Liaquat Medical College. (c) Costs. (d) Such other relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this matter.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Bhungor, Padidan, Taluka Noshero Feroze, District Nawabshah. He passed Inter Science examination in the Medical Group and obtained 62.4%. He was also entitled to 2% on account, of the completion of N.C.C. training. He applied for admission in the 1st Year M.B.B.S. in Liaquat Medical College, Jamshoro, Dadu for the year 1983‑
84. However, the petitioner was declined the admission on ground that the petitioner's father's domicile does not contain his name.
3. The case of the petitioner is that since his father's domicile certificate was issued on 21‑2‑1964 when the petitioner was not even born (as he was born on 9‑4‑1965), the same could not have included his name. It is also his case that as he had filed domicile of his father as well as his separate domicile the requirement of the prospectus was complied with. Above case had come up for hearing before us on 9‑5‑1984 but we had adjourned the case for today as respondent No.3 who was granted admission on account of omission of the petitioner, was not present. Since the notice for hearing was sent at the address of the College which was admittedly closed, we ordered notice for today at respondent No.3 on residential address. From the report of the Bailiff and the Civil Judge Naushero Feroze, it seems that notice was served on respondent No.3, on 12‑5‑1984. The case has been called several times since morning but no body has turned up for respondent No.3. We have therefore, proceeded with the case at about 11‑40 a.m.
4. Mr. M.I. Memon, learned Addl. Advocate‑General appearing for respondents Nos.1 and 2 has candidly conceded that the ground on which the petitioner was declined admission is not sustainable in law. We are also of the view that since the petitioner's father's domicile certificate was issued on 21‑2‑1964, it could not have included the petitioner's name as he was born subsequently on 9‑4‑1965. Since the petitioner had produced his father's domicile as well as his separate domicile, there was compliance of the relevant rule of the prospectus. In this view of the matter respondent No.2 was not justified in refusing admission to the petitioner on the above ground. The petition, is, therefore, allowed and respondent No.2 is directed to give admission to the petitioner if otherwise he is eligible. There will be no order as to costs. H . B . T . Petition allowed.