MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J :-- Ehsan Ullah Bajwa, petitioner is an Associate Professor City & Regional Planning Department University of Engineering & Technology, Lahore. On 30th of November, 1989 a letter was addressed by the Deputy Director Academics University Grant Commission to the Registrar, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore stating that i.e scholarship for his University for the years 1989-90 were available and the University may recommend suitable candidates for the grant of scholarship. It appears that on 23rd December, 1989, the Chairman Department of City and Regional Planning, recommended the petitioner as a principal candidate and of respondent No.6 as his alternate. Subsequently, however, by the letter dated 13th February, 1990 (Annex G) the Registrar, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore recommended the name of respondent No.6 as the principal candidate while the petitioner's name was forwarded as an alternate candidate. This recommendation of the University of Engineering and Technology has been assailed by filing this constitutional petition.
2. Mr. Irshad Ullah Chatha, Advocate submitted that according to the formula for selection of candidate prescribed by the University Grants Commission itself the merit of the petitioner was much higher than respondent No.6 and therefore, the name of respondent No.6 could not have been recommended in preference to the petitioner.
Sh. Maqbool Ahmad, learned Standing Counsel and Kh. Muhammad Faruq, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.4 (University Grant Commission) state that the final selection has not yet been made by the Government regarding grant of scholarship and the matter is still under its consideration though the recommendations have been received from the University of the Engineering and Technology, Lahore. The learned standing counsel further states that the Government is willing to hear the petitioner before finally deciding whether the scholarship should have been granted to the petitioner or respondent No.6.
In this view of the matter the petition is premature and is disposed of accordingly. It is, however, directed that before, finalization of the matter respondent No.5 shall hear the petitioner and then decide it. There shall be no order as to costs.