' MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J.-Contends that the petitioner applied for Ph.D. Scholarship. He appeared in the test and secured 58 marks. As per award list the candidates who secured 51 marks have been awarded Scholarship, however, the petitioner has been illegally ignored.
2. Learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is overage.
' In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner became overage owing to the inaction on the part of the respondents. The specific object of the Ph.D. Fellowship Programme was to give Scholarship to 5000 students in batches of 1000 students starting from 2003. The stress of the learned counsel is that four batches of Ph.D. Students means subsequent four years.
3. I have perused the record and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
Admittedly, the petitioner is overage. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has become overage owing to the inaction of the respondents, has no merit.
'Subsequent four' years does not mean succeeding four years. I do not find any substance in this petition, therefore, dismiss the same in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.