1995SCMR723 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ZAEEM KHALID and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus BAHA‑UD‑DIN ZAKERIA UNIVERSITY and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995SCMR723 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ZAEEM KHALID and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus BAHA‑UD‑DIN ZAKERIA UNIVERSITY and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR723 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR723 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR723 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ZAEEM KHALID and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus BAHA‑UD‑DIN ZAKERIA UNIVERSITY and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 14th December, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 21‑12‑1991, in I.C.A. No. 69/1991. (a) Educational institution‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Withholding of result of candidates‑‑‑Other candidates of the same examination earlier filed Constitutional petition and High Court directed Authorities for announcement of their results‑‑‑Candidates who were similarly circumstanced, on the basis of said judgment claimed announcement of their results and filed Constitutional petition to attain that object but to no avail as their petition was dismissed on ground of laches‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider contention that delay in filing Constitutional petition was not caused due to any lapse on the part of candidates (petitioners) as they had all along been making representations to the concerned Authorities. (b) Educational institution‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185‑‑‑Appeal to Supreme Court‑‑ Other candidates who were similarly circumstanced had been granted relief by the Authorities on the basis of direction of the High Court in an earlier Constitutional petition‑‑‑Such direction of High Court having attained finality, candidates (in fresh Constitutional petition) who were similarly circumstanced were entitled to the same relief‑‑‑Authorities were directed accordingly. Respondent No.2 in person.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J: ‑‑The appellants herein by leave of this Court, have challenged judgment dated 21‑12‑1991 of the Lahore High Court (Multan Bqnch), whereby Intra‑Court Appeal No. 69/1991, filed by them against judgment dated 14‑9‑1991 of learned Single Judge of that Court, was dismissed.
2. The appellants appeared as private candidates in B.Ed. Examination (Annual 1988) held by respondents. The result of the examination was announced on 20‑4‑1990, but the result of the appellants as well as some other candidates was withheld on the ground that they did not teach for 9 months without break in a recognized school. The appellants made representations to the University Authorities for declaration of the result but of no avail, while Khalfur Rehman and some other candidates through Writ Petition No.1063/1990 challenged the action of the University Authorities, for withholding the result of the examination. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court (Multan Bench) on 14‑5‑1991, allowed the Writ Petition and directed the University Authorities to declare the result of the Examination. The University Authorities did not assail the aforesaid judgment before the Supreme Court and the same attained finality.
3. The appellants also invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for the same relief but the. Writ Petition was dismissed on the ground that they had approached the Court with delay.
4. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 27‑4‑1992, to consider the contention .that the appellants were not granted the relief like others similarly situated on the ground of delay which did not occur due to any lapse on their part as they were not associated with the proceedings and had been making representations to the University Authorities.
5. We have heard learned counsel for appellants as well as the Controller of Examination, Baha‑ud‑Din Zakaria University who appeared in person. The Controller Examination admitted that the case of the appellants was identical to that of Khalilur‑Rehman and others whose result had been declared in compliance with the order of the High Court. He has also not controverted the submission made by the appellants' counsel that the appellants had been making representations to the University Authorities for the declaration of the result.
6. In these circumstances the appellants cannot be treated differently from those similarly situated at the hands of the University Authorities.
7. In the result this appeal is allowed with a direction to the respondents to declare the result of the appellants in the Second Annual 1988 B.Ed. Examination. As the respondents did not seriously contest this appeal, there shall be no order as to costs. A.A./M‑1946/S Appeal accepted.