2009 PLP 156 (CLC)

HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.

This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.4818 of 2007, 5858 of 2007 and 5891 of 2007 as the same questions of law are involved therein.

2. Brief facts leading to these writ petitions are that the petitioners applied for admission in B.Ed., Morning Session 2007-08 from Government Elementary Teachers' Training College, Nawan Shehr, Multan, on the basis of their qualification i.e. B.A. In the prospectus the age limit was mentioned as 24 years whereas the petitioners' ages were more than required age, so due to the upper-age limit prescribed by the concerned authorities they moved before the concerned authorities for the relaxation of age as well as admission in Morning Classes for the Session 2007-08 and this request was made on the strength of order dated 1-8-1992 whereby the Principal was authorized to relax up to 5 years and Director of Education was allowed to relax up to 8 years and DPI Colleges/Schools were authorized to relax up to 10 years but the petitioners were not responded despite availability of seats in Morning Classes.

3. The petitioners approached this Court through the present writs which were admitted for regular hearing through orders dated 19-11-2007, 23-11-2007 and 26-11-2007 respectively and it was also directed that if the petitioners are otherwise on merits, except to the bar of age, shall be given admission in the morning classes subject to payment of usual charges.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that on the strength of orders passed by this Court, the petitioners were granted admission, they completed the requisite course satisfactorily, examination is scheduled to be held on 10-8-2008, requisite examination fees have already been deposited and if the writ petitions are not allowed there is apprehension of non-suiting the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel submit that it is a clear case of discrimination as there is no bar of age for the evening classes but imposing a condition of age in the morning classes is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan when the similarly placed applicants are being treated differently.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners rely on Riaz-ul-Haq v. Selection Committee constituted for admission in Bolan Medical College and 6 others 1997 SCMR 1845 and Dr. Liaqat Ali v. Vice-Chancellor University of Agriculture Faisalabad and 2 others PLD 1999 Lah. 454.

7. On the other hand, learned AAG submits that it is prerogative of the departmental authorities either to accede petitioners' request for relaxation of upper age limit in accordance with the order of 1992 or refuse and no one can challenged the refusal through the course of writ.

8. Arguments heard. Record perused.

9. It is an admitted position that in the same subject i.e. admission in B.Ed. the candidates for evening classes are not facing the said condition of overage whereas the applicants for the morning classes in the same discipline are facing the imposition of upper age limit, which otherwise does not seem to be justified on the touchstone of fair play equity and reasonableness.

10. In the present case, there is another important aspect that the petitioners were admitted in B.Ed. classes in compliance with the orders of this Court, they have completed the requisite course without any complaint whatsoever i.e. satisfactorily, examination is also scheduled to be held on 10-8-2006 and for that the requisite fee has already been deposited by the petitioners and in such like controversy the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case of Riaz-ul-Haq (supra) held "admission having been given to appellant by act of Court none from respondent side had come to challenge such act of Court, therefore, it has been treated final qua appellant to complete his education".

11. In the present case, on behalf of respondents learned A.A.-G. is of course present in the Court but did not controvert the factual position after consulting the relevant record that the petitioners have already completed the course and they are going to sit in the forthcoming examination of 10th August 2008 and for that they have deposited the requisite fee, so the judgment supra is fully attracted in the impugned matter.

12. This judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan was followed in the case report as Dr. Liaqat Ali v. Vice-Chancellor, University of Agriculture Faisalabad and 2 others PLD 1999 Lah.

454. Relying on these judgments, the petitioners are held entitled for appearing in the final examination of B.Ed. classes. Resultantly, writ petitions are allowed in the above terms. H.B.T./A-101/L Petitions allowed.