MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J:- Muhammad Muzaffar Rabbani petitioner had secured 801 marks in F.Sc(Prc-Engineering) in Annual Examination held in May 1990 by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore. He applied for admission to It year B.Sc (Engineering) Class in the University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore on 29.11.1989. He failed to secure admission in City and Regional Planning Discipline. Aggrieved by non-admission in the University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore he invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court seeking direction to the respondents for of this Court seeking direction to the respondents for displaying the 4th list for filling up the remaining vacant scats.
2. It was averred in the petition that the respondents had already displayed three merit lists of selected students and as per las] list displayed, the last student called for admission obtained 803 marks as against the petitioner who secured 801 marks. If the 4th merit list was displayed the petitioner would have secured admission on merit out of 77 seats lying vacant. The respondents had already violated para 9.2 to 9.4 of the University Prospect allowing admission to studies out of the vacant seats.
The respondent No. 1 in para wise comments conceded that there are 77 seats lying vacant.
According to the admission policy laid down in the current prospectus the petitioner can not secure admission because there are 17 persons who had obtained more marks than the petitioner and the last person admitted in the discipline. It was also averred that under para 9.6 of the Current University Prospectus admission cannot be allowed ordinarily after the expiry of 15 days from the commencement of the fist year class. The admissions were closed from 15.8.1990 and the teaching session had already started from 9.7.1990. It is not possible for the petitioner to complete requisite days of attendance qualifying him to appear in the examination.
3. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties but find myself unable to interfere in the matter of admission policy as contained in University Prospectus. The petitioner has not been able to make out case calling for interference, when the admissions stand already closed since 15.8.1990 and academic session had already commenced with effect from 9.7.1990. Nevertheless in the circumstances of the instant case, I cannot help observing that the admission policy referred to above requires re-consideration. It has been frankly conceded by learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of the instructions imparted by him that almost every year a fair number of seats remain vacant in various disciplines out of the total number of seats available for admission in the University and in this way number of students desirous to seek admission are thus deprived. The admission policy requires revision in such a manner that not a single available scat goes unutilised before the target date for closure of the admissions.
Undoubtedly the petitioner and may be some other students similarly situated, keen to seek admission in the University of Engineering and Technology have a prima facie case of hardship which can be taken notice of by the University unauthoritied in comparison to those who had forfeited their right of admission. The University authorities are duty bound to act fairly and justly.
The observations made hereinbefore, are in-accord with the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Abdul Majid vs. District Magistrate Loralai and 3 others (1990 SCM R 825) wherein it was held: "The appellant having devoted a few years at Tandojam is no longer interested in getting admission at Khuzdar. In Tandojam University he was not in competition with any other Balochi candidate and his exclusion will not result in substitution but one seat allocated to Baluchistan will go unutilized. These and such factors have to be taken full note of by executive officers, while functioning in a country . With scarce and underutilized resources.
8. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed."
In another case captioned as Miss Khola Jabeen and two others vs. Government of N.W.F.P, through Secretary.. Health Department. Peshawar and 5 others (PLD 1976 Peshawar 97), a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court held:- " The Government in nominating the candidates for admission to Medical Colleges cannot act despotically and throw rules of equity, justice and good conscience to winds - Government even in the administrative acts, bound in duty to act justly, fairly and reasonably."
4. For the foregoing reasons and subject to the observation made above this petition is disposed of.