CLC 1993

19930 L C 1278 (PLP)

ASHRAF ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus REGISTRAR, N.E.D. UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING &

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
C.P. No.D‑860 of 1991, decided on 5th November, 1991.
Honorable Judges
Mamoon Kazi and Muhammad Hussain Adil Khatri, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 19930 L C 1278 (PLP)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members Mamoon Kazi and Muhammad Hussain Adil Khatri, JJ
Parties ASHRAF ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus REGISTRAR, N.E.D. UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING &
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 19930 L C 1278 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 19930 L C 1278 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Mamoon Kazi and Muhammad Hussain Adil Khatri, JJ.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 19930 L C 1278 (PLP) (ASHRAF ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus REGISTRAR, N.E.D. UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING &). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • M.S. Qureshi for Petitioner.
  • Rehanul Hasan Farooqui for Respondent No.l.
  • Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, AA.‑G. for Respondent No.2.
  • Date of hearing: 5th November, 1991.

Headnotes / Summary

(a) Educational institution‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Admission to Bachelor of Engineering Course in University of Engineering "' and Technology‑‑‑Category, under which petitioner had applied required that he should have passed B.Sc. (Pass) Programme Examination as also Higher Secondary Certificate Examination in group of Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry or equivalent Examination from any other Board or University accepted as such by University of Engineering and Technology‑‑‑Petitioner had applied for admission on basis of his B.Sc. degree‑‑‑Petitioner, however, had not passed Higher Secondary Certificate Examination nor equivalent thereof‑‑‑Petitioner claimed to have passed diploma course of Associate Engineers which had been recognized as equivalent to Higher Secondary'` Certificate by Inter‑University Board for admission in BA./B.Sc.‑‑‑Decision of such Board however. did not recognize such diploma as equivalent to Higher Secondary Certificate for admission to Bachelor of Engineering‑‑‑Diploma Course of Associate Engineers, thus, would not make holder thereof, eligible for admission to Bachelor of Engineering Course‑‑‑Admission to Bachelor of Engineering Course was thus, rightly denied to petitioner. (b) Educational institution‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑ Admission to Bachelor of Engineering Course‑‑‑Inter‑University Board's decision to recognise Diploma in Associate Engineering as equivalent to Higher Secondary Certificate for purpose of admission to BA./B.Sc., was not shown to be binding on respondent when it was being asserted with vehemence that it had not accepted Diploma in Associate Engineers as equivalent to Higher Secondary Certificate for admission to Bachelor of Engineering Course. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Admission to Bachelor of Engineering Course‑‑‑Petitioner had not placed any material on record to rebut stand of respondents that he was not entitled to admission as per Rules and Regulations‑‑‑Petitioner had failed to point out any instance of grant of admission by respondent to any other candidate, with similar qualifications to establish discriminatory treatment‑‑ No infringement of any fundamental rights guaranteed to petitioner or violation of any law having been pointed out in petitioner's case, his Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Judgment & Decree

We have heard Mr. M.S. Qureshi for the petitioner, Mr. Rehanul Hasan Farooqui for respondent No.l and Mr. AA. Mohammadally for Respondent No.2. Mr. Rehanul Hasan Farooqui stated that Respondent No.l has not accepted or declared the diploma course of Associate Engineers as equivalent to Higher Secondary Certificate Examination. It is on such basis that the petitioner has not been found qualified for admission in the aforesaid course of respondent No.l The learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to controvert the aforesaid stand taken by respondent No.l. He, however; referred to letter dated 29‑1‑1973 issued by Inter‑University Board of Pakistan in which it is stated that the Standing Equivalence Committee of the said Board has decided to recognise the Associate Engineers Diploma as equivalent to FA./F.Sc. for admission to B.A./B.Sc. The learned counsel for respondent No.l contended that the said recognition, will entitle the diploma holding to seek admission to the classes of Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science, but not for admission in the course of Bachelor of Engineering in respondent No.l University unless the said University has accepted the aforesaid diploma as equivalent to Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC). It was therefore, contended` by the learned counsel for respondent No.l that the refusal of the admission is in accordance with the Prospectus and the petitioner has not been discriminated in any manner whatsoever. Para 10.1 of the Prospectus of respondent No.l reads as under:‑‑ "10.1. The qualification for admission under various categories as specified in para. 10.2 shall be as follows:‑‑ (i) The basic qualification for candidates under admission categories 10.2.1(b) to 10.2.8 and 10.2.10 to 10.2.13 is only HSC (Pre‑Engg.) Examination of the Board of Intermediate Education Karachi in the Group of Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry or an equivalent Examination from any other Board of University accepted as such by the NED University in at least C Grade (50% aggregate). (ii) The basic qualification for candidates under admission category 10.2.1 (a), in addition to qualification laid down in sub‑para (i) above, is B.Sc. (Pass) Examination, after being registered in B.Sc. (Pass) Programme, in First Division/Class with one of the following combination of optional courses: (1) Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. (2) Physics, Mathematics and Statistics. (3) Chemistry, Mathematics and Statistics (4) Physics, Mathematics or Mathematics A and Additional Mathematics or Mathematics Category 10.2.1 (a) reads as under: "10.2.1(a). Candidates who are permanent residents of Karachi Division and have passed B.Ss. (Pass) Programme Examination." Under the head of Category 10.21(a), requirement mentioned in B.Sc. (Pass) Programme Examination. But this category is to be read with para. 10.1 that is to say, the petitioner who has passed B.Sc. Examination, has further to show that he has passed Higher Secondary Certificate Examination (Pre Engineering) of the Board of Intermediate Education, Karachi, in the group of Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry or an equivalent Examination from any other Board or University accepted as such by the NED University (respondent No. 1), in at least `C' grade. The case as set out by the petitioner, in the petition, is based on the plea that the petitioner having passed B.Sc. Examination is entitled to admission in respondent No.l University, but he has been denied the same, though such candidates who have acquired lesser marks in B.Sc. have been included in the list of eligible candidates, announced by the said respondent. The petitioner, has not pleaded, any where in the petition that he had passed the Associate Engineers' Diploma Course or that the said Course is equivalent to Higher Secondary Certificate Examination of the Board of Intermediate Education, Karachi. From the reading of the memo of petition, it appears and no other .opinion is possible, that the petitioner considered himself entitled to admission only on the basis of marks obtained by him in B.Sc. (Pass) Programme Examination, overlooking the requirement of para. 10.1(i) and (ii). However, when the requirements for admission under para. 10.2.1(a) were detailed in the parawise comments filed by respondent No.l and it was averred that the petitioner had neither passed the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination of the Board of Intermediate Education, Karachi, nor the equivalent thereof, the petitioner disclosed that he held the aforesaid Diploma and that it was recognised by the Inter‑University Board as equivalent to Higher Secondary Certificate. The petitioner for the said purpose has relied on letter dated 29‑1‑1973 on the subject of eligibility of Associate Engineers for appearance in BA. or B.Sc. examination, wherein decision of the Standing Equivalence Committee of the said Board has been reproduced, which reads as under:‑‑ "It was decided to recognise the Associate Engineers' Diploma as equivalent in FA./F.Sc. for admission in BA./B.Sc." The said decision of the said Board does not recognise the said Diploma as equivalent to Higher Secondary Certificate for admission to B.E., though it is delcared as such for admission to the two Bachelor Course mentioned therein. Therefore, the aforesaid Diploma does not make the holder thereof eligible for admission to Bachelor of Engineering Programme Examination in Category 10.2.1(b) which is to be read with para. 10.1(i)(ii). Consequently, the petitioner cannot claim entitlement to admission in Category 10.2.1(a) which is to be read with both the afore‑mentioned sub‑paras. of para. 10.1 of the Prospectus. The petitioner has also filed photo copies of relevant page of "A Book of Equivalences of Educational Certificate in Pakistan", in which the aforesaid Diploma of the Boards of Technical Education Pakistan, has been shown ass equivalent to Higher Secondary Certificate (Pre‑Engineering). The aforesaid Book has been published by the Inter‑Board Committee of Chairman and appears to contain the decision taken by the Committee consisting of the Chairman of Boards of Intermediate all over Pakistan. Nothing was pointed out to demonstrate that the aforesaid decision of the Inter‑Board Committee of Chairman was binding on respondent No.l, particularly, when it was being asserted with all vehemence on behalf of respondent No.l, that it has not accepted the said Diploma as equivalent to Higher Secondary Certificate. The petitioner has not placed any material before us to rebut the stank taken by respondent No. 1 learned counsel. The petitioner has not pointed out any instance of grant of admission by respondent No. 1 to any other candidate with similar qualifications to establish discriminatory treatment. We, therefore, do not find infringement of any fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner or violation of any law in this matter. The above are the reasons for the short order dated 5‑11‑1991 whereby the petition was dismissed in limine. AA./A‑1191/K Petition dismissed.