SYED MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, J.---Precisely, the facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for admission to the MBA (Morning) Program 2008, in the Karachi University. He passed his written aptitude test but in the final list of the successful students his name did not transpire. No result was delivered to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner served legal notices upon Karachi University dated 2-1-2008 but no reply was made, hence the petitioner has filed this petition with prayer to declare that the petitioner was entitled to admission in the MBA (Morning) Program 2007, in the Karachi University on merit according to the Admission Policy Rules.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as per Admission Policy, mentioned at page 51 of the Prospectus, for admission in Academic Year 2008, issued by the respondent No,2, the criteria for the admission rules is defined as under:-- ADMISSION RULES
(1) All admissions are only on Merit basis. Candidates must have passed their pre-requisite examination in at least Second Division with 50% (fifty per cent) marks.
(2) Minimum qualifying marks in the Aptitude Test are 50%
(3) Merit list of candidates qualifying in Aptitude Test will be prepared for final selection as per following weightages. > Previous Academic Record 50% > Aptitude Test 40% > Interview 10%
3. Learned counsel for petitioners further contended that respondent No,2 has violated the above- mentioned Admission Rules as it is not particularly possible that petitioner could be failed in the interview test when he has passed aptitude test and possesses a very good academic record. He has contended that due to malpractice of the respondents the petitioner has suffered a lot and other students who scored lesser marks than the petitioner have been given admission in MBA. He has further contended that even the petitioner has not been admitted in MPA as 50 seats were allotted in MBA and 60 seats in MPA.
4. Conversely, Mr. Muhammad Tasneem learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 and 3 has contended that about 1050 students applied and appeared in the aptitude test and only 126 students qualified the same i.e, they scored at least 50% marks in the aptitude test and since almost all of them had given their first choice as MBA and second choice for MPA, hence all the 126 students were required to appear in interviews for MBA on 12th/13th December, 2007 and for the MPA on 14th/15th December, 2007, respectively. He has further contended that as per Admission Rules a final merit list was prepared after interview and according to the formalities prescribed in the Admission Book at Page 51 (supra), out of 126 students, first 50 students were granted admission in MBA. He has further contended that entire processes were transparent without any favoritism and admissions were granted purely on merit and according to the Admission Rules. He has further contended that the last student who was granted admission at Sr. No,50 on merit scored 61% marks whereas the petitioner appears at Sr. No,77 on merit list with 58.500%. He has further contended that prior to interview the petitioner was at Sr. No,70 as he scored 6 marks in interview, therefore in the final merit list he has been placed at Sr. No,77 which clearly shows that even he was not mentioned in first 50 students prior to interview. He also placed the Final Merit List for MBP (Morning) 2008 of 126 students, the result of answer sheet of aptitude test of petitioner, and as regarding admission in MPA Mr. Muhammad Tasneem has simply replied that petitioner only applied for the MBA and he has also placed photocopy of the Admission Form showing that the petitioner only applied for MBA.
5. On the other hand Mr. Izhar Alam Farooqi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the Karachi University has wrongly applied the admission rules as prescribed at Page 51 of the Prospectus and he has argued that "Previous Academic Record 50% i.e, for the Matric/Inter and has contended that the petitioner scored in Matric 685 out of 850 marks, in Inter 814 out of 1100, and in Graduation 963 out of 1500 with total marks being 2462 out of 3450 the aggregated being percentage 73.612 and therefore petitioner's Grand total marks inclusive of his previous academic record will become 65.681 instead 32-100 as shown in the Column No,4 at Sr. No,77, which was wrong as by adopting above formula the score of the petitioner becomes 63.081 instead of 58.500 and his position would therefore be at Sr. No,43 instead of Sr. No,77, hence the petitioner was entitled to admission in the MBA (morning) 2008. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon Muhammad Shahzad Qazi v. Chairman Joint Admission Committee, Khyber Medical College Ayub Medical College and 2 others 1998 M LD 1243; Hamza Khan v. Province of Balochistan through Secretary, Department of Education, Civil Secretariat, Quetta and others 1995 SCM R 711; Chairman; Selection Committee Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore and 2 others v. Wasif Zamir Ahmed and another 1997 SCM R 15 and The Employees of the Pakistan Law Commission, Islamabad v. Ministry of Works 1994 SCM R 1548.
6. In reply to the above arguments Mr. Muhammad Tasneem, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 and 3, has contended the petitioner has misunderstood the admission rules as given in the prospectus. He has further contended that 50% marks has been noted for "Previous Academic Record" and only means of graduation i.e, B. SC, B . A , B . Com. , B . E. , MBBS, MBA, BS etc. And he has also referred to the final merit list in which at Sr. No,1 Nida Sehar scored 4159 out of 5200, Sr. No,2 Sundus Samiuddin scored 3061 out of 3600, Sr. No,3 Sukhshahla Tabassum scored 1644 out of 2000, Sr. No,4 Nasir Shafiq scored 3979 out of 5200, Sr. No,5 Javeria Qadeer scored 2933 out of 5200, Sls.
Interview falls in category 'K'. This is already mentioned in the Column of Category and further the petitioner scored 58.467 marks in column of final merit list, and has been placed at Sr. No,77, hence he could not get admission in MBA.
7. The arguments besides the plaint that 50 seats were allotted for MBA and 60 seats were allotted for MPA and that because the petitioner had been placed at Sr. No,77 on the final merit list, therefore, he could not be admitted in MPA is discriminatory and against the rules, however, as per "admission form", the petitioner never mentioned his substitute category as MPA candidate, as he has applied for MBA only, and he has further contended that as per admission rules at page 51 "previous record", means that the result of total numbers should have been calculated of Matric, Inter and Graduation, but that the University has discriminated and considered the previous record of other students while the previous record of petitioner has not been considered, which shows the violation played on the part of the University. The previous record of Graduation also reflects that in not a single case University considered Matric and Inter record of any of the students while compiling the record. The total numbers as scored and mentioned in the concerned column varied from 500 to 9050 for different courses and subjects were not the accumulation of Matric and Inter as per the respective marks sheets.
8. It is clear that the learned counsel for the petitioner on one pretext of the other has raised new grounds without' having any substance. The learned counsel, for the respondent has clearly replied to all the queries raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, hence we find that the petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed, which is accordingly dismissed.