YLR 2012

2012 PLP 1140 (YLR)

Sayeda SOMIA BUKHARI — Petitioner Versus JOINT ADMISSION COMMITTEE through Chairman/Principal Khyber Medical College, Peshawar and 3 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Peshawar
Decided Date
Writ Petition No.435 of 2010, decided on 3rd June, 2010.
Honorable Judges
Ejaz Afzal Khan, C.J. and Sardar Shoukat Hayat, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2012 PLP 1140 (YLR)
Forum / Court Peshawar
Bench Members Ejaz Afzal Khan, C.J. and Sardar Shoukat Hayat, J
Parties Sayeda SOMIA BUKHARI — Petitioner Versus JOINT ADMISSION COMMITTEE through Chairman/Principal Khyber Medical College, Peshawar and 3 others — Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 1140 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 1140 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Ejaz Afzal Khan, C.J. and Sardar Shoukat Hayat, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 1140 (YLR) (Sayeda SOMIA BUKHARI — Petitioner Versus JOINT ADMISSION COMMITTEE through Chairman/Principal Khyber Medical College, Peshawar and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan

Representation

  • Nasir Mehmood for Petitioner.
  • Ghulam Shoaib Jally and Ijaz Anwar for Respondent No.1.
  • Nisar Hussain for Respondent No.4.
  • Date of hearing: 3rd June, 2010.

Headnotes / Summary

Art. 199

Constitutional Jurisdiction

Scope

Educational institution

Admission in medical college on basis of seat reserved for candidate having domicile of the area

Genuineness of domicile certificate

Candidate (petitioner) contended that respondent was not domicile of the area and domicile certificate furnished by respondent's father was not genuine, because of which respondent was not entitled to obtain admission against the reserved seat

Validity

Genuineness of domicile certificate issued to the respondent's father was called into question by the candidate after referring to certain particulars, but such question being related to a factual controversy could not be gone into by the High Court while hearing a constitutional petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Judgment & Decree

EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, C.J.

Petitioner through the instant petition has asked for the issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to admit her against the seat reserved for Kala Dhaka on annulment of admission granted to respondent No.4.

2. The essence of the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that when neither the respondent nor her father is domiciled of Kala Dhaka, the former is not entitled to get admission, against the seat reserved therefor.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents by referring to certain documents tried to canvass at the bar that respondent No.4 being a daughter of a person domicile of the area of Kala Dhaka was rightly given admission in the College.

4. We have gone through the record carefully and have also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was against the genuineness of domicile certificate issued to the father of respondent No.4. He by referring to certain particulars mentioned therein tried to make it doubtful in order to make out a case for the cancellation of admission granted to his daughter. But all these questions being related to the factual controversy cannot be gone into by this court while hearing a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. We thus at this stage would not like to intervene. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to question the genuineness and validity of the certificate by filing a civil suit in the competent court. M.W.A./43/P Petition dismissed.