' KARIMULLAH DURRANI, J.-In this Constitutional Petition the petitioner, Hamidullah Jan son of Azizullah Khan, resident of Mohallah Jangi, Peshawar City, an athlete and a Basket Ball Player has challenged the refusal of Sports Selection Committee, Sports Incharge and Dean of the Engineering Faculty of the University of Peshawar and Vice-Chancellor, Peshwar University (respondents I to 4) to entertain the application of the petitioner for granting admission in the Faculty of the Engineering, Peshawar University on one of the seats reserved for the sportsmen on the ground that the certificate of honour issued by the President Inter-Board Sports Committee of Pakistan to the petitioner for his participation as member of the Athletic Team of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar in the Inter Board Athletic Championship of 1971-72 and having won 400 Metres Hurdles in the said competition was "brand new" and, therefore, not genuine.
2. It has been contended that the petitioner passed his F.Sc. (Pre-Engineering) Examination in Second Division from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, N.-W.F.P. For the first time under Roll No, 7212, in Session of 1973 under the name of Rifatullah Jan and, once again, probably for improvement in division obtained, under Roll No, 5687 in the session of 1977 under the changed name as Hamidullah Jan. After passing the second examination the petitioner applied for one of the seats reserved in the Faculty of Engineering for Sportsmen. The petitioner appended the certificate mentioned above with his form of admission. The Faculty Authorities refused to consider his form on the ground that the certificate purported to have been issued in 1973 was brand new and therefore not genuine. The petitioner was thus refused admission in the Faculty of Engineering, Peshawar University without having been given a chance to establish his bona fides or the genuineness of the certificate. It has been further contended by the petitioner that thereafter an enquiry was held on the back of the petitioner and one Muhammad Aslam Audit Officer Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to report after holding the enquiry as to how a bogus Certificate was issued on behalf of the Inter Board to the petitioner. This Enquiry Officer made his report on 19th March, 1979 vide his No, 24-1-BSI.
Whereby the certificate appended by the petitioner with the Admission Form was held genuine and properly issued by the Physical Director, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar. The further grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the above-mentioned clearance by the Enquiry Officer, respondents I to 4 did not grant admission to the petitioner in the Faculty of Engineering, Peshawar University and respondents 5 to 9, who were lesser in qualification on Athletic sport side were given preference over the petitioner. Hence this petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length and have also examined the relevant record. The rejection of the Admission Form as alleged by the petitioner and the result of the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer are not denied by the respondents. In regard to the enquiry, it is strenuously urged on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 that it was a preliminary enquiry and submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the Board Authorities and was not meant for onward transmission to the University Authorities and that the petitioner has surreptitiously and by under hand methods acquired its copy. The matter of the copy of the interim report ' reaching hands of the petitioner was now being subjected to a fresh enquiry against the persons concerned. This enquiry has not yet been concluded. In support of this contention the copies of the correspondence between the Authorities concerned have been placed on record. Be that as it may, the certificate produced before us and admitted to be the same which was disputed by the Engineering Faculty Authorities has a clear mention at the face of it in the form of the following endorsement : "Original issued on 12th April, 1972 and revised on 26th June, 1979 vide B.I.S.E. Peshawar No, 321-326, dated 18th January, 1975."
' This endorsement clears the whole matter in that the document of the Board referred to therein is a letter from the Controller of Examinations (Conduct), Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar addressed to the Principal, Edwardes College, Peshawar whereby the change of name from Rifatullah Jan to Hamidullah Jan of the petitioner on his request was allowed on 18th January, 1975. Thus there seems to be much force in the contention of the petitioner that this certificate having originally been issued in 1973 was in the name of Rifatullah Jan and was, therefore, tendered in 1979 to the Board Authorities for the revision of the name from Rifatullah Jan to Hamidullah Jan and therefore a fresh certificate in the new name with the endorsement of the authorization for the change of name was issued to the petitioner.
4. Mr. Bashir Ahmad Khan, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 has pointed out the omission of the entry of the date of birth by the petitioner in his application for admission and has built up argument on the same that had the petitioner entered his date of birth in the form, he would have been held disqualified for admission in view of rule 15 of University of Peshawar Sports Tournaments Rules and Regulations, 1967 which is in the following terms : "15. Eligibility :
(a) The number of years a student is allowed to participate in the Inter-Collegiate Tournaments may not exceed the duration of his course plus one year for arts and science courses, and duration plus two years for Engineering, Agriculture and Medicine courses. A student after his first M.A. Can play during his second M.A. Or LL.B., if he was within the prescribed age limit of 25 years.
(b) Age of the participation may not exceed 25 years."
' The learned counsel on the basis of the above Rules Contends that a sportsman candidate could only be allowed admission if he is not more than 21 years of age at the time of admission in the Engineering course because this course being of four years, he would reach the maximum age limit prescribed above at the end of the course. As the date of birth of the petitioner is 23rd April, 1955 he had already passed 23 years at the time of the application for admission and would thus cross the maximum age limit of 25 years for a sportsman in the middle of the course. What the learned counsel means by this argument is that any person admitted to the Faculty against the seats reserved for Sportsmen should not be more than 21 years so that till the end of tenure of the course he should remain eligible for taking part in the sports. The learned counsel further contends that the omission on the part of the petitioner to insert his date of birth in the relevant column is nothing but concealment of a fact of which he was aware that it would go against him.
5. The contention of the learned counsel can be repelled on two grounds, firstly that the Rules relied upon are not meant for admission in the Faculty of Engineering but are framed for the conduct of Tournaments by the University, whereby the sportsmen students of more than 21 years age can still play in the tournaments till such time as they attain the age of 25 no matter what the duration of their courses be and secondly, the refusal to entertain the admission form of the petitioner was admittedly not based on this ground.
6. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 has also referred to a letter from the Principal Cadet College, Kohat addressed to the father of the petitioner, Mr. Azizullah Khan on 27th March, 1970 a copy of which has been placed on the record with the written statement by the said respondents.
This letter informs the addressee that the petitioner had been committing acts of indiscipline and indulging in undesirable activities repeatedly and therefore his name was struck off from the College Rolls. Again this document cannot come to any aid of the respondents, in that it was not relevant for the matter in hand and that this was not one of the reasons prevailing with the respondents 1 to 4 in refusing admission to the petitioner.
7. As condemning the petitioner unheard by refusing to take into consideration the admission form of the petitioner on more suspicion to the genuineness of the certificate appended thereto has not been denied, this act of the concerned authority was clearly against the interest of natural justice and has to be set at naught. It has been urged on behalf of the respondents that the academic year of the Institution commencing with the admission in question has almost come to an end and any admission to the petitioner at this late stage would disturb the whole equilibrium of the course and in addition the academic career of one of the respondents to whom the seat in question is allotted will be ruined.
8. As regards these contentions suffice it to say that the petitioner or for the matter of that any person cannot be allowed to be condemned unheard. To seek admission in an institution is the right of a student B who qualifies for the same. In the instant case the petitioner has not been allowed to establish his bona fides. The moment any doubt was entertained in regard to the genuineness of the document placed before them by the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the Authorities concerned to have called upon him to establish as to how this certificate was issued in present name, while it pertained to the period when he was known as Rifatullah Jan or how it had retained its freshness after the lapse of several years. Had it been done the petitioner would have very easily satisfied the authorities by production of the letter allowing the change of name or otherwise that this certificate was the revised document of that which was originally issued to him in 1973. As it was not done, we are constrained to hold the act complained of the respondents to 4, as violative of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the case has to be remitted to respondents 1 to 4 for giving a due hearing and a chance to the petitioner to substantiate his claim for admission against the seat in question. In case the petitioner satisfies the Authorities that he is qualified for admission in all respects, it should not be very difficult for the Authorities concerned to allocate an additional seat to the petitioner in the course applied for without disturbing any one of the other respondents, who has been allotted the seat in his stead.