P L D 2003 Quetta 18 (PLP)

AKHTAR ZAMAN MALGHANI, J.‑‑In this Constitutional petition following relief has been sought:‑‑ "(i) To direct the respondent 1 to admit the petitioner in the college of respondent 1, and, to declare the act of respondent 2 denying admission to the petitioner in the college of respondent is against Article 4 of the Constitution. (ii) To declare the act of respondent No.2 denying admission to the petitioner in the first year of I. C. S. in the college of respondent 1 is illegal; void and without justification." Matter relates to admission in Federal Government Degree College, Quetta. It is the case of petitioner that he had recently passed his Secondary School Certificate Examination and obtained 412 marks‑.out of

850. Thereafter he applied for admission in Federal Government Degree College, Quetta in ICS Class but was refused on the ground that the said college is meant for children of officials belonging to Armed Forces. According to petitioner his uncle Major Muhammad Gulab Khan Barakazi (late), served Army while his elder brother Hamza Khan Barakazi, is, still serving in the Army as Lieutenant. He further stated that the college authorities had granted admission to students having less marks than petitioner. Pre‑admission notice was given to respondents who in response to same filed parawise comments to the petition. According to respondents Federal Government Degree College, Quetta Cantt. is working under F.G.E.I. (Federal Government Education Institution) Cantt./Garrison Directorate, G.H.Q., Rawalpindi and admissions in the college are granted in light of admission policy issued by the Director, G.H.Q., Rawalpindi. They also annexed policy alongwith comments which reads as under:‑‑ To

1. All GSOs‑1, FGEI(C/G), Regional Offices.

2. All Heads of F.G. Educational Institutions (Cantt/Garrison). Info: All Sections (Local). Subject: ADMISSION IN FGEIs (SCHOOLS/COLLEGES)

1. With immediate effect following policy with regard to allocation/distribution of seats will be observed for admission in F.G. Educational Institutions (Cantt./Garrison):‑‑ a. College Admissions (1) FA/FSc‑‑Class XI (a) Open merit (Open to all categories Cantt. residents) 45%. (b) Children of serving Armed Forces Personnel 35% (c) Children of retired Armed Forces Personnel 10% (d) Children of civilians paid out of defence estimates 10% (2) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (b) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (c) . . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (d) ... ... . . ... ... ... ... ... (e) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (3) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (Sd.) Brig. Director, Federal Government Educational Institutions, (Muhammad Irshad Arshad). It is also stated that the case of petitioner does not fall in any one of the category mentioned in admission policy and last student admitted in the Science General (ICS Group) had obtained marks 532/850. Heard counsel for petitioner and learned Deputy Attorney‑General on behalf of respondents. According to learned counsel petitioner has obtained more marks than the last student admitted in the college who had secured 382 marks while the marks of petitioner are

412. We have considered the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for petitioner. It is to be seen as to whether petitioner is an aggrieved person within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. We afraid not because it is an admitted position that the last student admitted in General Science Group (I.C.S. Group) secured 532 marks while petitioner has only secured 412 marks muchless than the last student admitted in the college. Learned Deputy Attorney‑General stated at bar that there were a number of students who have secured more marks than the petitioner but were refused admission being below the merit. In such circumstances in our opinion petitioner is not an aggrieved person and petition on his behalf is not maintainable. Moreover, the merit list tiled alongwith the comments shows that the admission has been granted to students strictly in accordance with admission policy. Petitioner has applied for admission in General Science Group (I.C.S. Group) and as already observed the marks of last students coming on merit are 532, as such, no case for admission in favour of petitioner is made out. The contention of the learned counsel that the last student admitted in the college has obtained 382 marks is also without force because the case of petitioner is distinguishable from the case of said student. Petitioner seeks admission in I.C.S. Group while the said student was admitted in Humanities group. Furthermore, case of that student falls within the category of children of Armed Forces Personnel to which petitioner does not belong. The last student admitted in Humanities Group on the open quota has obtained 437 marks more than the petitioner's marks. Besides above, this Court cannot compel the college authorities to increase seats in order to accommodate certain students. The college has its own policy and it is for college authorities to fix number of students to be admitted in light of accommodation and other facilities available in the college. The next submission of counsel for petitioner that petitioner's uncle served Army and his brother is a serving Army member is also of no help because quota has been reserved for children of Armed Forces Personnel in which category petitioner does not fall, as such, he cannot claim to be admitted on the seats reserved for such category being relative of Army Personnel. In the light of above .discussion, we are of the considered view that this petition is without merit and liable to be dismissed which is accordingly' dismissed in limine. Q.M.H./M.A.K./137/Q Petition dismissed.