The case of the petitioner is that he was nominated by the Government for admission in the Engineering University for the Sess 1984-85, but he was not so admitted. The reply of the University that four of the nominees of the Sind Government for the year 1983 being in excess than the required quota of the Sind Government, v not admitted in that Sessions and it was pointed out to the ; Government that the four students will be admitted in the next ses 1984-85. This was communicated, vide order, dated 10-7-1984 (Anne II). The Sind Government agreed with that except that it chan place of one student by another. This is vide memorandum, d~ 3-9-1984. These four students along with ten others from the Government were admitted in the session 1984-85.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is 1 the four nominees of the previous year 1983-84 could not be admil in the sessions 1984-85 and only the nominees of 1984-85 could admitted in the session and the petitioner was one of them.
3.Those four students who have been nominated in 1983-84 have been admitted in the session 1984-85 with the consent of S Government are not a party to the writ petition. If the contention the learned counsel for the petitioner were to succeed and it were be held that the nominees of 1983- 84 could not be admitted in session 1984-85, hence one of four students nominated for the sese 1983-84 will have to give place. None of these four students has b impleaded as party to these proceedings. This petition, therefore, can succeed. The seats for the year 1984-85 having been filled and session being nearly at the end, nothing can be done for the petition The petition is, therefore, dismissed but in the circumstancs the part are left to bear their own costs.