Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 19‑P of 1982, decided on 14th February, 1982.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of Peshawar High Court dated 17‑1‑1982 in Petition No. 352/81).

Art. 199‑Writ jurisdiction‑Petitioners guilty of deliberate suppres sion of material facts‑Discretionary remedy, held, cannot be availed of by such persons‑--[Writ].

Abdur Rashid v. Pakistan 1969 S C M R 141 ref.

Educational Institutions‑Admission‑Holders of B. Sc. degree with 65 % or more marks having to be considered for admission, petitioner not holding degree of B. So. but having passed only B. A. examination, held, not entitled to be admitted to College of Engineering & Technology.‑[Educational Institutions].

Qazi Atiigur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent. .

Date of hearing : 14th February, 1982.

.‑This petition has been moved under Article 185 (3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, read with Provisional Constitution Order of 1981 for leave to appeal against the judg ment and order of Peshawar High Court dated 17‑1‑ 1982 in writ petition No. 352 of 1981.

The petitioner who is admittedly a third divisioner in F. S and is not B. Sc. was refused admission in the University College of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar, and he alongwith some others challenged that decision of the University through Constitution petition (Writ Petition No. 152 of 1981) before the Peshawar High Court. The petitioner Raza Khan is B. A., as now admitted by his learned counsel, but he had asserted before the High Court in the writ petition that he had passed his B. Sc. examination in the first division. However, the High Court after looking at Annexure A‑1, found that Raza Khan petitioner had passed B.A. and not B.Sc. examination. Even Raza Khan petitioner did not convert that position before the High Court and the High Court held that he had not come to the. Court with clean hands and that he is guilty of suppression of material facts deliberately and as such the discretionary remedy would not be available to him. As the petitioner had suppressed material facts in his petition, the High Court was justified in dismissing his writ petition on the ground that he had not come with clean hands. The High Court relied on the authority of the Supreme Court, reported as 1969 S C M R 141.

Raza Khan has now moved this Court through the presant petition. In the Prospectus of the Engineering College for the academic session for the year 1980‑81, it is clearly provided that admission shall be made on merit which shall be determined for each category as follows :‑--

(a) Merit No. 1‑B. Sc. with Physics, Chemistry and Maths., 60 % or more marks.

(b) Merit No. 2‑B. Sc. 65 % or more marks in the Semester System or 60 % or more marks in annual. System, with grouping as indicated under para. 6 (c).

There is a note under that which recites that, "only B. Sc. candidates with grouping as. specified under para. 6(c) are eligible.

< [if supportLists]>(a) Merit No. 3.‑F. Sc. with Physics, Chemistry and Maths. 45 % or more marks.

< [if supportLists]>(b) Merit No 4‑B. Sc. 50 % or more marks under the Semester System or 45 % or more marks in annual system and with grouping as indicated in 6(c).

It is thus clear that holders of B. Sc. degree with 65 % or more marks can be considered for admission.

The petitioner was, therefore, not entitled to be admitted to the Univer sity College of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar and his writ petition was rightly dismissed. We, therefore, find no basis in this petition and leave cannot be granted to the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.