2007 PLP 226 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ALI BUGTI — Petitioner Versus N.E.D. UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
| Citation | 2007 PLP 226 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI BUGTI — Petitioner Versus N.E.D. UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY |
| Primary Law | Educational Institution |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 226 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Educational Institution as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 226 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 226 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ALI BUGTI — Petitioner Versus N.E.D. UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, Advocate-on-Record/Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd November, 2005.
- 3. Mr. Jatoi learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, on facts, conceded that the petitioner could not qualify the examination on account of the fact that there were extraordinary and abnormal law and order conditions prevailing in Dera Bugti but contended that despite the failure of the petitioner he would be entitled to avail of one more chance as notified by the respondent-University. In view of the fact that duration of the course is spread over five years and the candidates shall be allowed maximum seven academic years from the date of their first admission for passing the final year examination, it is difficult to subscribe to the view of the learned counsel, which on the face of his admission, is untenable and not fit to be accepted. In our considered view, by declining relief in the constitutional jurisdiction, High Court neither committed any illegality nor acted with material irregularity justifying interference by this Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.
Headnotes / Summary
Examination of Bachelor of Engineering
Petitioner/candidate who failed to qualify examination in seven academic years, prayed that one more chance be given to him as special opportunity on humanitarian considerations
Prayer of petitioner was declined by High Court
Contention of petitioner was that he could not qualify examination on account of fact that there were extraordinary and abnormal law and order conditions prevailing in the area
Contention was repelled in view of the fact that duration of the course was spread over to five years and candidates were allowed maximum seven academic years from the date of their first admission for passing the final year examination
By declining relief in constitutional jurisdiction, High Court had neither committed any illegality nor had acted with material irregularity justifying interference by Supreme Court under Art.185(3) of the Constitution.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
Petitioner is aggrieved by Sindh High Court order, dated 5-11-2004 dismissing his constitution petition against disallowing him to appear at the examination of Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) in the light of notice, dated 27-9-2004 published in daily "Jang", Karachi issued by respondent-University.
2. Grievance of the petitioner appears to be that all students, who failed to qualify the course of study prescribed for the examination of Bachelor of Engineering in seven academic Years i.e. from 1991-92 onwards and enrolled with the respondent-University were allowed one more chance as a special opportunity on humanitarian consideration. The petitioner admittedly was admitted to the course of B.E. (Computer System) in the batch 1989-90. He secured change of faculty from Computer System to Civil Engineering in the academic year 1993-94 but failed to qualify the examination in seven academic years. He later, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court but without any success on the premise that he had exhausted the limit of seven academic years during which he was required to qualify the course of studies.
3. Mr. Jatoi learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, on facts, conceded that the petitioner could not qualify the examination on account of the fact that there were extraordinary and abnormal law and order conditions prevailing in Dera Bugti but contended that despite the failure of the petitioner he would be entitled to avail of one more chance as notified by the respondent-University. In view of the fact that duration of the course is spread over five years and the candidates shall be allowed maximum seven academic years from the date of their first admission for passing the final year examination, it is difficult to subscribe to the view of the learned counsel, which on the face of his admission, is untenable and not fit to be accepted. In our considered view, by declining relief in the constitutional jurisdiction, High Court neither committed any illegality nor acted with material irregularity justifying interference by this Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. No ground for leave is made out. Petition is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./M-159/SC??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.