' MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO, J.---Case of the petitioner is that he appeared in Entry Test conducted by the respondents/Quaid-e-Awam University of Engineering, Science and Technology Nawabshah Shaheed Benazirabad for admission in Bachelor of Engineering. He had applied in category-F which was reserved for Diploma Holders. He got the first position in the test and was so positioned in the merit list posted on the website of the University on 27.11.2015. Respondent No,4 also appeared in the Entry Test but in category-D which was reserved for the candidates having degree of FSC (P.E.). But to his surprise name of respondent No,4 was mentioned in the first interview list dated 02.12.2015 in category-F. Petitioner made an application against such discrimination before respondent No, 1/Vice Chancellor QUEST Nawabshah but to no avail, hence he filed the instant petition seeking following reliefs:- a. Declare the petitioner as successful candidate for the seat of B.E. (F-Electrical) on urban seat. b. Direct the respondents Nos. 1 to 3, do not deprive the petitioner from his rights, who is successful candidate for the seat of B.E. (F-Electrical) Batch 2016. c. Direct the respondents Nos.1 to 3, do not deprive the petitioner from his rights, who is successful candidate for the Seat of B.E (F-Electrical) Batch 2016. d. Grant any other relief which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in these circumstances of this case.
2. Stance of the respondent University against such assertions of the petitioner, which is mentioned by respondent No,1 in his comments, is altogether different. According to which, due to some bona fide mistake, the request of respondent No,4 for admission in category-F, albeit applied by him, was not considered and as soon as it was noted, the mistake was rectified and he was called for interview, and accordingly his name was shown at serial No,1 of the merit list in category-F on the basis of his marks which were higher than the marks of the petitioner.
3. Mr. Umed Ali Khawaja learned counsel who appeared for the petitioner argued that respondent No,4 was not even qualified to apply in category-F reserved exclusively-for the diploma-holders as his academic qualification was F.Sc. He further contended that if a candidate was seeking admission in any other category on the basis of his being HSC, then merely because he was also diploma-holder would not make him entitled to additionally opt for admission in category-F as under the scheme of admission it was not permitted.
' Either a candidate could go for admission in any of the categories on the strength of HSC, or he could apply for admission in category-F on the basis of his being diploma-holder. He cannot opt for admission in both the categories simultaneously.
4. Mr. Kamaluddin learned advocate presented a different view of the University in his arguments.
According to him, there was no such policy or rules disentitling a candidate, who was HSC and also diploma-holder, from applying in more than one category at the same time. He also informed that respondent No,4 had applied in category-A because of his being intermediate in science, category-D (reserved for sportsmen) claiming to be sportsman and category-F on the basis of his being diploma-holder. In two former categories (A-D) he was not found eligible for admission, however in the remaining category (F) on the basis of his higher marks than the petitioner's, his name was shown on merit list of such category. Regarding name of the petitioner initially appearing on the merit list of category-F at serial number 1, he stated that due to some bona fide lapse admission request of respondent No,4 in category-F was not considered but after realizing such mistake his name was placed at serial number 1 on the basis of his marks.
5 Mr. Liaqat Ali Malik learned advocate for respondent No,4 adopted the arguments of Mr. Kamaluddin advocate.
6. We have considered their contentions and perused the material available on record. The rules and procedure for admission are provided at item No, 11 of the prospectus of the University. Item No, 11.2.1 speaks of general eligibility of candidates who have passed Higher Secondary Certificate to apply for admission. Item No, 11.2.2 specifically classifies the categories in which, keeping in view the candidate's specific discipline in HSC (pre-engineering or pre-medical etc.), he can be admitted.
Clause v of the said item spells out that those who have passed Diploma, of Associate Engineer are eligible to apply only for admission in category-F. Item No,11.10 prescribes the selection procedure against various categories, that is, all candidates who have applied for admission against the seats reserved under categories A to E, will be considered first for admission against the seats reserved for their respective districts under category-A. If a candidate who has applied for more than one category, he/she will be offered the discipline as per his merit in each category. He has to select discipline of his choice from any one category. Learned counsel for the petitioner during his arguments referred to this item and argued that option to apply for admission in more than one category was available only on the seats under categories A to E, and since category-F was meant for the seats exclusively reserved for the diploma-holders, no such option was available. We don't find ourselves persuaded to agree with such proposition. There is nothing provided in admission criterion to suggest so. A perusal of the prospectus reveals that it is not the case that categories A to E offer a variety of options for admission in different technologies to the candidates who have passed HSC. Table-1 at page No,85 of the prospectus shows that category-A is sub-divided into sub-categories A-1 to A-23 and each such sub-category represents seats in different disciplines reserved for the candidates of different districts. Category-B reserves seats for girls domiciled in upper and lower Sindh between. QUCEST, Nawabshah and QUCEST, Larkano. Category-C is for children of employees of the University, category-D is reserved for sportsmen, category-E is for children of employees of affiliated colleges of the University, category-F is for diploma-holders who have passed diploma in Civil, Mechanical, Electrical, Electronic and Chemical/Glass and Fibre Ceramics Technology and are domiciled in former Sukkar and Larkana Divisions including Dirstrict Shaheed Benzirabad. There are other categories as well, up to category-O, which define eligibility of different classes of candidates to apply for admission on. The detail of such categories, the criterion for admission, the definition of eligible candidates and their different classes is given in Table-3 available at page No,87 of the prospectus.
7. It is item 11.2.2 that prescribes different disciplines in which a candidate on the basis of his group in HSC can be considered for admission. This is like, the candidates who have passed HSC in pre- engineering group are eligible to apply for the engineering disciplines besides applying for science disciplines, those who are HSC in computer science are eligible to apply for BS (IT), BS (CS) and BS (Maths); and those candidates who are HSC in premedical group can apply for admission in BS
(CS) and BS (IT). And according to clause (v) thereof the diploma-holders are eligible to apply for admission in category-F only. If this clause is read together with the detail of category-F provided in Table-3, it would be obvious that the scheme of admission policy is to accommodate a diploma-holder in a particular discipline commensurate with the technology he has passed diploma examination in. This appears to be obvious reason why for the diploma-holders a particular category has been devised by the University. And it is also clear that within that category a variety of disciplines according to the particular technology a candidate has qualified in is available to the diploma-holders. In the relevant chapter of prospectus governing admissions in the University, it is nowhere provided that if a candidate is HSC and diploma also at the same time, he cannot be permitted or considered eligible to apply in either of the categories including category-F. Such an interpretation in our humble view, were it to be introduced, would be entirely alien to concepts of competition and merit, and it would be of course prejudicial to those candidates who by their sheer hard work achieve qualification in two different branches of education. Since we have not found any such proposition in the relevant criterion and procedure of the admission provided in the prospectus, we cannot accept the argument of the petitioner that respondent No,4 was not competent to apply for admission in more than one category as per his qualification and his name appearing in the merit list of category-F is against law and is illegal. In so far as the name of the petitioner appearing at serial number 1 of the merit list initially, Mr. Kamaluddin, learned advocate has already explained that it was due to some bona fide lapse.
Even otherwise appearance of the name of the petitioner on the merit list does not confer on him any inalienable right to be considered for admission at the peril of other candidates having higher marks than him.
8. As a consequence of above discussion, we find no merit in the instant petition. These are the reasons of our short order dated 15.03.2016 whereby we had dismissed this petition.