M.MAHBOOB AHMAD CJ.-- This appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby Writ Petition No.7540/90 filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that Muhammad Muzaffar Rabbani, appellant herein, secured 801 marks in F.Sc (Pre-Engineering ) Annual Examination held by the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Lahore, in 1990. He applied for admission to first year class of B.Sc. (Engineering Class) of the University of Engineering & Technology, Lahore, on 29th November, 1990. His application was, however, refused with the result that he filed the constitutional petition, out of which the appeal has arisen praying that respondents be directed to admit the petitioner. As already stated, the constitutional petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
3. It has been contended before us by the learned counsel for the appellant that admittedly, 77 scats were available for admission at the time when the application if the appellant was filed and as such, the respondents had not lawful authority to refuse admission to the petitioner.
4. In order to verify the correctness of the stand taken up by the appellant, we had recorded the statement of Taj Din, Administrative Officer of University of Engineering & Technology on 1st of July 1991. He stated that the last date for submitting the application for admission to 1989/90 Session was 14th December, 1989 and that after scrutinizing the applications of 824 candidates admission on merits was published on 26th February, 1990. It was stated that out of the said list, 305 students did not join with the result a second list containing 305 selectees was displayed but 42 out of these candidates did not deposit the fees. Again on 27th May, 1990 a third list was published for 42 available seats, which was followed by yet another list on 6th August, 1990 when I6 candidates were granted admission. He admitted that on 1st of September, 1990, the matter was examined again and it was found that 77 seats were still lying vacant.
5. It is thus obvious from this statement of the Administrative Officer that even on 1st of September, 1990, 77 seats were lying vacant. We have repeatedly asked the authorities including the Vice- Chancellor, who appeared before us, to state the reasons for not filling in the seats but except for some administrative difficulty, which to us did not appear to be unsurmountable, no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming. We must express our sense of dismay and regret for in-action and the negligence displayed by the respondents in not filling in 77 seats which went unutilized. It needs no gain saying that in developing countries like ours, the facilities of imparting higher education being so scare that people are clamouring for admission, the available resources must be utilized to the fullest extent.
6. The learned Single Judge primarily refused to grant any relief to the petitioner for the reason that admission was closed on 15th August, 1990. We are, however, not in agreement with the learned Single Judge. To us, it is quite evident that there was no justification to keep any seat vacant and as there were candidates available for admission, the respondents should have admitted them. It is to be noticed that the appellant has been repeatedly approaching the authorities concerned for the grant of admission who had kept silent. He even approached the Chief Minister of Punjab and also served a registered notice upon the respondents. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the respondents acted without any lawful authority in not granting admission to the appellant against available seats.
For the reasons aforesaid, accepting the appeal, we set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to grant admission to the appellant, as prayed for by him. No order as to costs.