1. SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIOUI, J.---The above-noted two petitions relate to the admission to the academic year 1984-85 to a seat in the NED University, Karachi. The following facts are not in dispute in the above petitions.
2. The petitioner in Petition No.113/1987 obtained a domicile certificate from Hyderabad in 23-5-1984.
3. On the basis of the above domicile certificate he also obtained a PRC (Permanent Residence Certificate) from the District Magistrate., Hyderabad on 10-6-1984. He applied for admission to Mehran University on the basis of the above PRC and he was allowed admission. He however did not pay the fees nor he actually joined the said University for pursuing his studies. It appears that in the meantime the NED University, Karachi, invited applications for admissions to the Engineering classes through advertisements in newspapers on 23-11-1984. The petitioner applied for admission in response to the advertisement and his application was accompanied by a domicile certificate dated 27-11-1984 and PRC dated 1-12-1984 obtained by hum from the concerned authorities at Karachi. On ti-1-1985 the first provisional list was issued by the NED University showing the names of the candidates who were to be admitted in the First Year Engineering classes against the reserved seats of Karachi and in this list his name was at serial No.1. He was accordingly allowed admission to the First Year Engineering classes. It appears that in the meantime the petitioner in petition No.113/1987 applied for cancellation of the domicile certificate and PRC issued to him by the Hyderabad authorities and he also surrendered both these documents for cancellation. There is a dispute with regard to the date of this application. The petitioner contends that this application was moved by him before the authorities concerned on 10-11-1984 while according to the comments submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad such an application was filed on 28-1-1985. The petitioner in Petition No.174/1987 who was shown at Serial No.5 of the provisional merit list and who was denied admission as there were only four seats for the Karachi area filed Petition No.556/1985 in this Court challenging the admission of the petitioner in Petition No.113/1987 on the ground that he had obtained admission by misrepresentation and fraud as at the time he applied for admission to the NED University he was already holding a PRC issued by the District Magistrate, Hyderabad and as such the PRC issued in his favour at Karachi was void. In the above petition a statement was made in Court on behalf of NED University by the learned counsel appearing for them that a notice in, this regard has already been issued to the petitioner in Petition No.113/1987 by the Registrar of the University and action in accordance with law will be taken against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the above petition also made a statement in Court that his client will also seek cancellation of the PRC of the petitioner in petition No.113/1987 and on the basis of these two statements Petition No.D-556/1985 was dismissed as withdrawn.
4. After dismissal of the above petition an enquiry was conducted by the NED Engineering -University in the allegation against the petitioner in Petition No.113/1987 and as the University was of the view that at the time the petitioner in Petition No.113/1987 obtained admission in the NED University he was already holding a PRC issued in his favour by the District Magistrate, Hyderabad, he was not entitled to apply and get admission in the NED University at Karachi. His admission was accordingly cancelled on 22-1-1987. Against the order of cancellation of his admission Petition No.113/1987 has been filed in this Court challenging the action of NED University. The petitioner in Petition No.174/1987 also by about the same time fried a petition seeking a direction from the Court that the respondents No.1 and 2 be directed to admit the petitioner in the First Year Engineering classes after cancelling admission of respondent No.2. It may be mentioned here that in Petition No.113/1987 an interim order was passed by this Court on 5-2-1987 while issuing notice of the interim application with direction to the respondent to allow the petitioner in Petition No.113/1987 to continue attending classes in the NED University. Mr. R.H. Farooqi, learned counsel for the NED Universitystates before us that in pursuance of the above order of the Court the petitioner has continued to attend classes and it is stated by Mr. Said Muhammad, that by now the petitioner has completed five semesters and is now in sixth semester examination. The crucial point which requires consideration in the above circumstances of the case is whether there was any valid PRC issued in favour of the petitioner in Petition No.113/1987 at the time he sought admission in the NED University and he was granted such admission by the authorities. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in Petition No.174/1987 as well as of respondent in both the petitions jointly is that as the petitioner in petition No.113/1987 was already holding a PRC issued in his favour by District Magistrate, Hyderabad his subsequent application to the District Magistrate, Hyderabad during the subsistence of that PRC was absolutely illegal and the admission obtained by the petitioner on the basis of PRC which was issued by the District Magistrate, Karachi, during the subsistence of another PRC for Hyderabad was of no legal effect. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the NED University that the fact that the petitioner in Petition No.113/1987 had failed to disclose in his application for admission to the NED University that at the time he made his application he was holding more than one PRCs amounts to concealment of facts and for that reason also the University was fully entitled under rule 33 of the Prospectus to cancel his admission in the University. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Petition No.113/1987 on the other hand contends that the petitioner having approached the District Magistrate Hyderabad for cancellation of his domicile and PRC which was ultimately accepted by authorities, he shall be deemed to be holding only one PRC for Karachi which is still valid and subsisting. It is accordingly contended that both on the date he sought admission in the NED University as well as on the date when his admission was cancelled by the University he was possessed of a valid PRC of Karachi, issued by the authorities and as such he fulfilled the requirements of admission laid down in the Prospectus.
5. In these circumstances, it is contended that the cancellation of his admission by the University was wholly without jurisdiction. With regard to allegation of concealment by the petitioner it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no requirement either in the prospectus prescribed by the respondent or anywhere else that a student applying for admission should also state that he had not obtained PRC for any other area. In any case it is contended that the PRC of Hyderabad issued in favour of the petitioner in Petition No.113/1987 having been cancelled there was no impediment in the way of the petitioner to seek admission on the basis of the PRC which was not only issued but is still subsisting in his favour. Neither the learned counsel for the petitioner in Petition No.174/1987 nor the AAG who is on Court notice is able to state before us whether the PRC issued in favour of the petitioner in Petition No.113/1987 by the District Magistrate, Karachi has been cancelled or held to be of no legal effect by the issuing authorities so far.
6. At this stage the learned AA.-G. Requests for time to seek instructions from the District Magistrate concerned to ascertain whether the PRC issued in favour of the petitioner in Petition No.113/1987 is cancelled or is still subsisting. It may be mentioned here that on 24-3-1986 when Petition No556/1985 was being dismissed by the Court as withdrawn the learned counsel for the petitioner in Petition No.174/i987 had made a statement before the Court that he will move the District Magistrate, Karachi for appropriate action against petitioner in Petition No.113/1987 for having obtained the PRC of Karachi by concealment of fact but the learned counsel for the petitioner in Petition No.174/1987 is also unable to state before us the fate of such application if filed before the District Magistrate, Karachi. In these circumstances we adjourn this case to 26th September, 1988 to enable the learned AA: G. Who is on Court notice, as well as the parties in the petition to place before us the order if any passed by the District M rate, Karachi in respect of the PRC granted in favour of the petitioner in Petition 113/1987. To come up for further orders on 26-9-1988. It may be mentioned here that Mr. Zaki Muhammad, learned counsel for the petitioner in petition No.113/1987 claims that his client has not only appeared in the examination of five semstera but that he has successfully cleared all these examinations. He is accordingly directed to place the results of the petitioner for these examinations on the next date of hearing.
7. Zaki Muhammad for Petitioner (in Civil Petition 113 of 1987).
8. Abul Khair Ansari for Petitioner (in C.R. No.174of 1987).
9. Zaki Muhammad for Respondent (in Civil Petition 174 of 1987).
10. Rehanul Hassan Farooqui for the N.E.D. University (in both Petitions).
11. A. Muhammad Ally, A.A.-G. On Court Notice (in Civil Petition No.174 of 1987).
12. Date of hearing: 26th September, 1988.
13. SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.--This order is to be read in continuation of our previous order dated 22-9-1988. In pursuance of our directive, Mr. AA. Muhammad A.I, learned AA.-G. Produced before us the file of District Magistrate, Karachi, and informed us that the PRC issued in favour of Syed A.I Mehdi, (petitioner in C.P.No.113/1987) has not yet been cancelled and that the applicant who had moved for its cancellation was advised to approach the Nationality Officer for cancellation of those documents in the first instance on the basis of which the PRC was issued in favour of Syed A.I Mehdi. In the light of above statement of learned AA.-G. Made before us today in Court, we have heard further arguments in the case.
14. Mr. Rehanul Hassan Farooqui, learned counsel for NED University defended the action of the University in cancelling admission of Syed A.I Mehdi on the ground that petitioner Syed A.I Mehdi was holding PRC of Hyderabad as well, at the time he applied and obtained admission to NED University, Karachi. The learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that as the fact that Syed A.I Mehdi also held a PRC for Hyderabad, was not disclosed by him at the time of seeking admission to N.E.D.
15. University, Karachi, against the reserved seat for Karachi, it amounted to concealment of material fact by him, which fully justified the cancellation of his admission by the N.E.D. University. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the cases of Samar Pervaiz v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and another PLD 1971 SC 833 and Principal King Edward Medical College, Lahore v. Ghulam Mustafa etc. 1983 SCM R 196. The cases cited by the learned counsel are quite distinguishable on facts. In the first noted case the petitioner had obtained admission by declaring that he had secured 643 marks and was placed in 1 Division.
16. However, on verification of his marks sheet from the Board concerned, it transpired that he had fraudulently got his marks increased in the Marks Sheet as he had obtained only 533 marks. On the basis of this disclosure his admission in the college was cancelled. Similarly in the second noted case the candidate had obtained admission in the college by filling in the column 10-A of admission form which was meant only for those students who had appeared in the qualifying examination for the first time. It was also found that he omitted to fill in column 10-B of the admission form which specifically related to him. On a confidential reference made by the college authority, it was disclosed that prior to the examination of 1980 the candidate had also appeared in 1979 and on this disclosure the admission of the student was cancelled. It is quite clear from facts of above cases that in each case the student had either disclosed an information which was found to be untrue or he deliberately omitted to supply some information which he was required to disclose. In the case before us, however, there is no column in admission form which required the student to disclose that he had or not earlier obtained P.R.C. Of another place. The admission form shown to us by the learned counsel for NED University only required disclosure by the student if he possessed P.R.C. Of Karachi. It is an admitted position that the P.R.C. Of Karachi was produced by Syed A.I Mehdi alongwith his admission form and this P.R.C. Issued to him is still subsisting as stated before us by the learned AA.-G. In these circumstances it cannot be said that petitioner in Petition No.113 of 1987 was guilty of any concealment or made any fraudulent disclosure in his admission form. It must be kept in mind that when we speak of concealment or non-disclosure it necessarily implies some obligation on the other persons to disclose that information. The concealment and non-disclosure alleged by the learned counsel for N.E.D. University as well as by the learned counsel for the petitioner in C.P.174/1987 jointly, against petitioner Syed A.I Mehdi Kazmi is that at the time he secured admission an the N.E.D. University, Karachi, on the basis of P.R.C. Of Karachi he was also holding another P.R.C. For Hyderabad issued by the District Magistrate, Hyderabad. We find that firstly, there was no column in the admission form of NED University which required the candidate seeking admission, to disclose whether he held or not P.R.C. Of another place. Secondly, the P.R.C. Of Hyderabad was surrendered by Syed A.I Mehdi Kazmi, which was accepted by the concerned authority and therefore, as and from the date of cancellation of Hyderabad P.R.C., the petitioner Syed A.I Mehdi Kazmi was holding only one P.R.C. For Karachi, which according to statement of learned AA.-G. Is still subsisting today. The position in the cLse before us, therefore, today is that the basis of admission of Syed A.I Mehdi Kazmi to NED Engineering University, namely, the P.R.C. Of Karachi,is not only existing but at no time it was withdrawn or cancelled by the authorities concerned. The effect, accordingly, is that the information supplied by Syed A.I Mehdi Kazmi to NED Engineering University in his admission form has neither been untrue nor it has ceased to exist so as to justify the cancellation of his admission. We may also add that Mr. Zaki Muhammad, learned counsel for the petitioner Syed A.I Mehdi Kazmi placed before us a statement in writing alongwith photostat of five Admit Cards issued to Syed A.I Mehdi Kazmi allowing him to appear in five Semester examinations out of the total eight semesters prescribed for the course by the N.E.D. University, Karachi, Mr. Rehanul Hassan Farooqui, the learned counsel for N.E.D. University admits this position but states that the result of these examinations has been withheld by the University on account of pendency of the present petitions. As the petitioner Syed A.I Mehdi Kazmist has already appeared in five Semester examinations and to complete his course he is now only to appear in three more semesters, it would be unjust if at this stage his admission is cancelled.
17. We accordingly allow C.P.No.113/87 and declare that the cancellation of admission of petitioner Syed A.I Mehdi Kazmi from the N.E.D. University on 22-1-1987 is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. We also hold that petitioner Khaleeq Ahmed (Petition No.174/87) was rightly refused admission to N.E.D. Engineering University as he did not qualify on merits and accordingly dismiss C.P. No.174/1987 filed by him. There will, however be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. As Petition No.113/87 is allowed we may C observe that the N.E.D. Engineering University Authorities may declare the result of five semester examinations of Syed A.I Mehdi Kazmi which were withheld by the authorities on account of pendency of these petitions.