MLD 2009

2009 PLP 670 (MLD)

FAIZA ANSARI — Petitioner Versus VICE-CHANCELLOR .BAHAU-UD-DIN ZAKRIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN and 3 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
2008-December-5
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2009 PLP 670 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties FAIZA ANSARI — Petitioner Versus VICE-CHANCELLOR .BAHAU-UD-DIN ZAKRIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN and 3 others — Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 670 (MLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 670 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 670 (MLD) (FAIZA ANSARI — Petitioner Versus VICE-CHANCELLOR .BAHAU-UD-DIN ZAKRIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Rana Muhammad Shakil for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Educational institution

Examination

Authorities had stopped the petitioner to sit in the examination on the ground that she had submitted a tampered result card for getting admission, while the petitioner claimed that said allegation had no basis

Case of the petitioner appeared of self-assertion, which could not be based for judicial order

Petition being not maintainable was dismissed.

Judgment & Decree

S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.

The petitioner got admission in the MIT Department for Master Degree. She was on merit at serial No.11 and now the first Semester examination is scheduled to be held on 15-12-2008 but the respondent has stopped her to sit in the examination on the ground that she has submitted a tampered result card for getting admission, therefore, prayed for to restrain the respondent not to create hindrance for sitting in the scheduled examination or to discontinue' the study.

2. Heard. It is an oral assertion without any written order passed by the respondent. The allegation against her is that she has submitted tampered result card to get admission while the petitioner claims that this allegation has no basis. The case of the petitioner appears of mere self-assertion, which cannot be based for the judicial order. This petition is not maintainable. Dismissed. H.B.T./F-1/L Petition dismissed.