1992 PLP 440 (CLC)
Miss HUMAIRA KAUKAB; ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus PUNJAB GOVERNMENT and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 440 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Lone and Lehrasap Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Miss HUMAIRA KAUKAB; ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus PUNJAB GOVERNMENT and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 440 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 440 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Lone and Lehrasap Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 440 (CLC) (Miss HUMAIRA KAUKAB; ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus PUNJAB GOVERNMENT and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Azim‑ud‑Din for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 11th November, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
Educational institution‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Admission to Medical College‑‑‑Academic year for which admission to Medical College was refused to candidates, had already ended‑‑‑Constitutional petition against such refusal was dismissed and prayer that if candidates were found eligible for grant of admission they could be accommodated in next session, was also rejected by High Court with observation that for grant of admission in next session, candidates should have to compete with fresh applicants desirous of seeking admission, in that session.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J: ‑‑This judgment will dispose of three writ petitions bearing Nos. 5770, 5771 and 5772, all of 1986, as common questions of law and facts arise therein. It shall; however, remain on the file of W.P. No. 5770/86.
2. The petitioners applied for admission to Medical Colleges for the academic year 1986‑87, but the admission was refused. This refusal is under challenge in these writ petitions.
3. It is conceded that the Academic year 1986‑87 has already passed. Thus, even if the writ petitions are accepted, the relief prayed for cannot be given to the petitioners, for, as stated above, the academic year for which they are applicants, is already over.
4. The learned counsel, however, submits that if the petitioners are held eligible for grant of admission they can be accommodated in the current session. But this argument has no substance, because, for grant of admission in the current session, they shall have to compete with the fresh applicants desirous of seeking admission to this session. In this view of the matter, there is no need to comment upon the merits of the petitioners' case. Needless to mention that by means of a comprehensive judgment dated 24‑5‑1987 recorded in I.C.A. No. 194/86, all the relevant questions arising for consideration, have already been adjudicated upon. Dismissed with no order as to costs. B.H.T./M‑96/L Petitions dismissed.