Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. 254 of 1980, decided on 5th July, 1980.

‑‑ Admission in University‑Seats reserved for children of Uni versity employee‑"University employee" ‑ Definition‑Person holding post in University Service and paid from University funds‑Retired or dead employee, held, cannot come within mean ings of term "University employee" for purpose.‑[Educational Institutions ‑‑Words and phrases].

‑‑ Art. 199‑University of Peshawar Service Rules, 1977‑Admis sion‑Khyber Medical College‑Additional seats reserved for children of University employees‑Petitioner's father dying long before creation of additional seats‑Petitioner, held, cannot be regarded as son of University employee and as such cannot put his claim to any of seats reserved for children of University emp loyees.‑ [Educational Institutions].

----‑Admission ‑Khyber Medical College ‑Candidate submitting admission form before last date‑Improving division/marks and making his position for purpose of admission better than that if petitioner before finalization of admission‑Neither prospectus nor any other Rule providing any bar against candidate to claim better position on basis of improvement of division---Supplementary Examination ‑No interference in writ jurisdiction, held, warranted with such candidate's selection based on higher marital position and petitioner having not been admitted have had no vested right which could be said to have been infringed on admission of such candidate.

Qazi Muhammad Jamil for Petitioner.

J. D. Akbar Ji for Respondent,No. 1.

Qazi Atiq‑ur‑Rehman and Muhammad Ashfaq for Respondent No. 5.

Date of hearing : 22nd June, 1980.

‑By this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 Muhammad Tahir seeks an appropriate writ for having the recommendations of Qazi Hizbur Rehman respondent No. 5 for admission to the Khyber Medical College, Peshawar, by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and his subsequent admis sion to the said College declared as illegal and without lawful authority.

The petitioner also seeks a declaration directing respondents Nos. 1 to 2 to recommend his name to the said College in accordance with merits list as finalized on 11th February, 1980 the closing date for admission of application forms.

The facts, so far as it is necessary to state them for the purposes of dealing with the points involved, are few and simple, and maybe stated thus quite shortly. On 28th January; 1980 the Governor, North‑West Frontier Province, created three additional seats in the Khyber Medical College, Peshawar, for the children of employees of the Peshawar University. In consequence of the creation of these three seats, the University Authorities issued a Notification inviting applications for the seats, the last date for the receipt of applications being 11th February, 1980, In response to the notice, the petitioner who had passed his B. Sc. (Pre‑Medical) Examination in First Division in the year 1979 applied for admission in the Khyber Medical College, against one of the seats reserved for the children of the University Employees. Qazi Hizbur Rehman also applied for admission against one of these seats before the closing date, he having obtained second Division in F. Sc. (Pre‑medical). Before the finalization of the selection, which had to take place on 2nd April, 1980 the supplementary examinations result of respon dent No. 5 was declared in which he improved his division earlier obtain ed by him. He got First Division with better marks than the petitioner. The said respondent submitted his supplementary result to the Deputy Registrar (Academic), University of Peshawar, on 18th February, 1980 as a result of which be was selected for M. B., B. S. Classes in preference to the petitioner. A representation made by the petitioner against the admission of respondent No. 5 in preference to him could not achieve the desired results with the result that he filed the present writ petition in this Court.

There are two, and only two points which fall for determination in the present petition and which were argued before us by the learned counsel and on which the fate of the petition hinges. They are : (1) Whether the petitioner is son of a University employee and ; (2) Whether petitioner has a good case on merits to succeed against respondent No.5 ;

As regard the first point, it is common ground between the parties that the Governor, North‑West Frontier Province created three additional seats in the Khyber Medical College, Peshawar, for the children of the employees of the University of Peshawar. The father of the petitioner was once an employee of the Peshawar University but he died long before the creation of the three seats referred to above. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the term "University Employee" includes retired as well as dead employees of the University. It was argued by him that since the father of the petitioner bad once been an employee of the University, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of admission against one of these three seats on that score. It appears to us that this contention of the petitioner's counsel is founded on a misconcep tion. The term "University employee" has been defined in the Uni versity of Peshawar Service Statutes, 1977, to mean a person who holds a post in the University service and who is paid from the University Funds. This definition makes it absolutely clear that the University Employee must be a living person and not a retired or a dead individual. It is, therefore, plain that a retired or a dead employee cannot come within the meanings of the term "University Employee". Since the petitioner's father died long before the seats in question were created the petitioner cannot be regarded as the son of a University Employee and for that reason he cannot put his claim to any of these three seats reserved for the children of the employees of the Peshawar University. For this reason alone, the present petition is liable to dismissal.

We now arrive at a stage where it becomes necessary to consider the second point. The learned counsel for the petitioner candidly conceded before us that before the finalization of the admission to the M. B., B. S. Classes in the Khyber Medical College, the respondent No. 5 improved his division/marks on the basis of which his position for the purpose of admission became better than that of the petitioner. The learned counsel, however, contended that the improvement in the division/marks after the last date for submission of admission Form could not be taken benefit of by respondent No. 5. There is absolutely no substance in this argument. It is undeniable that respondent No. 5 submitted his admis sion Form before the last date fixed for the submission of such Form.' Before the admission could be finalized, the result of supplementary' examination was out in which respondent No. 5 improved his division ands mark and thus obtained better position for admission to the M. B., B. S.' Class. There is no bar in the prospectus or any other rules which could stand in the way of the respondent No. 5 to claim better position as against the petitioner on the basis of improvement of division in the supplementary examination. The said respondent being higher on merit, it could not be appropriate to interfere with his selection in writ jurisdiction. Again, the petitioner not having been admitted to College, acquir ed no vested right and no such right can be said to have been interfered with by the admission of respondent No. 5. If any authority is needed to support this conclusion we would refer to Miss Majeed Tabasam v. Government of Sind and 3 others (1). In such a state of affairs, the petitioner has no case on merits as well.

In view of what has been stated above, it is manifest that there is no substance in this writ petition. The result, therefore, is that the petition fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.

M. Y. H. 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.