' SYED MUSADIQ HUSSAIN GILLANI, J.--- Our this judgment recorded in Writ Petition No,1944 of 2007 shall also dispose of connected Writ Petition No,1791 of 2007, as the question in dispute in both the writ petitions is the same.
2. Petitioners, Saeed Bacha and his father Noor-ul-Wahab, filed two separate Writ Petitions, bearing Nos.1944 of 2007 and 1791 of 2007 respectively under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, praying that the petitioner Saeed Bacha being student of 7th Class of New Beacon High School, Sakhakot, appeared in the competitive examination of ETEA in the University Public School, Peshawar, dated 29th August, 2007, under Roll No,18016, held on the basis of a scheme of Government of N.-W.F.P. For imparting free education to the poor, talented, and deserving students. He qualified the examination by securing 59% marks, but was deprived from his genuine rights of admission in the Centre of Excellence, despite the fact that he attained second position in District Malakand. One female student of the same District, namely, Kausar Shah daughter of Muhammad Zahir Shah, who secured 3rd position in the District Malakand, by obtaining 54% marks, was considered for admission, ignoring the petitioner. The admission, announced by .The respondents, was void ab initio, unlawful, and having no legal effect whatsoever on the rights of the petitioner, as well as against the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution. Respondents Nos.2, 5 and 8 submitted their comments, and contended that being not eligible, petitioner Saeed Bacha was not admitted in the Centre of Excellence.
3. We have heard Noor-ul-Wahab (petitioner in Writ Petition No,1791 of 2007), who is father of Saeed Bacha (petitioner in Writ Petition No,1944 of 2007), who appeared on behalf of his son Saeed Bacha petitioner, but did not produce his counsel, and learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the material appended with the petitions.
4. Noor-ul-Wahab earnestly prayed that his son Saeed Bacha despite having secured 59% marks, and second position in the competitive examination, was not considered for admission, and his vested rights were violated. He prayed that on the acceptance of writ petitions, the respondents may be directed to accord admission to Saeed Bacha petitioner in the Centre of Excellence.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents controverted that rights of the petitioner Saeed Bacha were not violated, because according to criteria adopted in the meeting dated 27-9- 2007, petitioner was not entitled to the admission.
6. It appears from the minutes of the meeting, and comments of respondents Nos.2, 5 and 8, that quota for District Malakand for admission in the Centre of Excellence was only two seats, one for male B and one for female students. Shahid Nawaz son of Naeem Gul, Roll No,18007, secured 1st position by obtaining 63% marks, and was accordingly admitted in the Centre of Excellence.
Similarly, Kausar Shah daughter of Muhammad Zahir Shah, Roll No,18953, secured 54% marks on the quota of female candidates, stood first and was granted admission. Petitioner Saeed Bacha obtained 59% marks, and placed at second position in the male candidates. Only one student from the male candidates, having highest marks, was to be admitted, and petitioner, being second, was denied admission rightly. The rights of the petitioner Saeed Bacha were not violated because respondents had not travelled beyond the admission policy qua quota reserved for the male students and as such no vested rights of the petitioner have been infringed. The Court will not interfere in such case, unless the act, complained against, is the manifest breach of relevant statutory provisions, or rules, or is mala fide, and in violation of principles of natural justice. In the circumstances, both the writ petitions, being without any substance, stand dismissed in limine.