1993 PLP 1246 (CLC)

Ataur Rehman for Respondent No.9. None other present. Date of hearing: 19th August, 1991. MUHAMMAD ASLAM.ARAIN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner Anwar Jawaid Khan has filed this Constitution Petition, seeking a direction to Respondent No.1 to admit him in first year of B.E. in academic session 1989‑90 on the basis of his merit of sports under category 10‑2‑7 of the Prospectus. A similar petition was filed by him being C.P. No.D‑196/90, which was disposed of by this Court on 13‑12‑1990 in the following terms:‑ "By consent, it is directed that a committee of at least 2 Professors of the N.E.D. University of Engineering & Technology, nominated by its Vice‑Chancellor, will hold an enquiry into admissions made against the reserved seats for sportsmen for the academic year 1988‑89 and in such enquiry the petitioner and his father and private respondents Nos.3 to 11 will be associated and they will be given full opportunity to place all such documents and other evidence that they may wish to produce in support of their respective cases. Mr. Rehanul Hassan Farooqui, on instructions of Mr. Agha Manzoor Ahmed, Director, Phsical Education of the University, informs that at present the Vice Chancellor of the University is in Japan on official tour and is expected back within the next few days. The committee will be nominated by the Vice‑Chancellor within one week of his return to Karachi and the enquiry will be completed within three weeks of the nomination of the committee. On the basis of enquiry, further action may be taken regarding admissions against reserved seats for sportsmen by the University in accordance with the rules.

2. Accordingly, a committee was constituted by the Vice‑Chancellor, N.E.D. University of Engineering & Technology with Professor Dr. S.M. Makhdoomi as its Chairman and Professor Dr. Muzaffar Mehmood as its member. The petitioner alongwith his father and the private respondents were associated and were given full opportunity to place their cases and other evidence that they wished to submit before the Committee. After hearing the petitioner alongwith his father and other respondents, a detailed report in about 19 pages was given by the Committee and the following was the conclusion:‑ "In the conclusion, this Committee is unable to disturb the admissions decided by the Sports Committee as the Petitioner has qualified in priority No.8, whereas respondent No.3 to 11 have qualified in better priority as prescribed."

3. The Petitioner has again approached this Court and challenged the findings of the enquiry committee on various grounds. His grievance is that the Review Committee was not constituted in a proper manner as its Chairman and Member were. not impartial. He has also urged that some questions suggested by him were not allowed and the report of the Review Committee is based on flimsy and fantastic conclusion. Parawise dements filed by the Respondent No.1have also been perused and we have also gone through the written arguments filed by the Petitioner and the Counsel for Respondent No.l.

4. The report of the Enquiry Committee nominated by the Vice -Chancellor is not only exhaustive but it also specifies the reasons on the basis of which the Petitioner was not lound eligible for admission in B.E. Course o: the University on the basis of his being an outstanding sportsman.

5. The Petitioner seeks admission in the academic session 1988‑89 for which he was not considered eligible and the private respondents, who were admitted during that session arc almost in third year class of engineering. The Petitioner cannot be admitted to third year of engineering on the basis of this Petition. We are, supported in our view by the judgment reported in 1992 CLC 1 440, where it was observed that if the academic year in question has passed during pendency of the Petition, it has to be dismissed as infructuous.

6. We have given our careful consideration to the facts of the case and also gone through the report of the Enquiry Committee. The documents on the basis of which the Petitioner claimed priority over the private Respondents were all considered and the Committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to admission against a seat reserved for outstanding sportsmen. We also do not agree with the Petitioner that the Members of the Committee were partial and did not appreciate the case of the Petitioner. The Petitioner had participated in proceedings before the Committee and did not challenge its constitution. We would not like to go into facts while considering a Constitution petition as the same have been properly investigated and a proper finding is given by the Committee. For these reasons, we find no merit in the Petition and dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, Misc. Applications 1655, 1656 and 1229 of 1991 arc also dismissed. H.B.T./A‑1118/K Petition dismissed.