1995SCMR229 (PLP)
QAISAR KHAN — Appellant Versus PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary, Department of Education, Quetta and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1995SCMR229 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court or Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | QAISAR KHAN — Appellant Versus PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary, Department of Education, Quetta and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Educational institution, (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR229 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Educational institution, (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR229 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court or Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR229 (PLP) (QAISAR KHAN — Appellant Versus PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary, Department of Education, Quetta and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Azizullah Meer, Advocate Supreme Court and K.N. Kohli, Advocate -on-Record for Appellant.
- Raja M. Afsar, Advocate-General for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 5th July, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, dated 18-1-1992 in C.P. No. 277/91).
O. I, R.9
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Non-joinder of a party in Constitutional petition
Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether direction could be made to appellant to implead specified person as a party to Constitutional petition and that such petition should pot have been dismissed on technical ground.
Initially specified person was made a party in Constitutional petition but same was withdrawn with permission to file fresh one
Specified person was not made a party in subsequent Constitutional petition on the ground that petitioner had no cause of action against that person
Petitioner claimed that his case was identical with that of respondent in subsequent Constitutional petition and he having secured lesser marks than petitioner, he (petitioner) could claim relief against him
Case was remanded to High Court by Supreme Court for decision on merits between petitioner and respondent. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 18-1-1992.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant applied for admission in the Engineering College, Khuzdar, against one of the seats reserved for Jafarabad District. The appellant received his education after 8th Class from outside Balochistan. The Selection Committee rejected the candidature of the appellant on the ground that he had studied outside Balochistan. The appellant filed a Constitution petition against the order of the Selection Committee in the High Court. In this Constitution petition Muhammad Iqbal one of the successful candidates was impleaded as a party. The said petition was withdrawn by the appellant with the permission to file a fresh petition for the reasons that one Ghulam Mustafa was not impleaded as a party to those proceedings. He had lesser marks than the appellant. The appellant filed a fresh Constitution petition impleading Ghulam Mustafa as the respondent but he did not implead Muhammad Iqbal. The learned High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the same was not maintainable. as Muhammad Iqbal had secured less marks than the appellant but he was not joined as the respondent.
3. Leave to Appeal was granted to consider whether a direction could be made to the appellant to implead Muhammad Iqbal as a party to such petition and that the petition should not have been dismissed on such technical ground?
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant has not impleaded Muhammad Iqbal as he had received all his education in Balochistan, therefore, his case is not identical to that of the appellant. He submitted that Ghulam Mustafa had also received his education from 8th Class to B.Sc. from outside Balochistan but he was allowed admission by the Selection Committee. He submitted that the case of the appellant and Ghulam Mustafa is at par and in case the appellant is successful, then Ghulam Mustafa would lose the seat. He submitted that he does not claim any relief against Muhammad Iqbal.
5. The appeal is allowed. The case is remanded to the High Court for decision on merits between the appellant and Ghulam Mustafa. No order as to costs. AA./Q-55/S Case remanded.