Pakistan Case Law← Search
1992 CLC 1453

SHAHZAD MUMTAZ vs N.E.D. UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY,

Citation1992 CLC 1453
CourtSindh High Court
Judge(s)Nasir Aslam Zahid, Salahuddin Mirza
ResultPetition dismissed

' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.--Petitioner Shahzad Mumtaz had applied for admission to First Year Engineering Batch 1990-91 in the N.E.D. University of Engineering & Technology under Category 10-2- 10, that is, rural. In this category, six seats were available for permanent residents of rural areas of Karachi. The last date of submission of application form was 18-3-1991. According to the petitioner, he had applied for the issuance of Permanent Resident Certificate (PRC) prior to 18-3-1991 but he received PRC a few days after the expiry of last date for submission of applications. He had, however, submitted his application form on 18-3-1991 with which he had attached a certificate of the District Magistrate, Karachi (East), certifying that the application for grant of PRC to the petitioner was under process. Later on, he submitted the PRC issued by District Magistrate, Karachi

(East) showing his permanent residence in Steel Town, a rural area of Karachi (East). However, the petitioner was not granted admission and, in the circumstances, he approached this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the University and later an additional counter-affidavit of the Registrar dated 9-7-1991 was also filed in which it was alleged that sometime in February, 1991, the petitioner had obtained a PRC from ,District Magistrate, Karachi

(East) showing his permanent residence in North Nazimabad, an urban area of Karachi. Admittedly this was not disclosed in the memo. Of petition and a copy of the previous PRC dated 26-2-1991 showing petitioner's permanent residence in an urban area of Karachi (East) had also not been filed. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner attempted to explain his position by submitting that in March, 1991, he had surrendered his Domicile Certificate as well as PRC showing his permanent residence in urban area and had applied for grant of Domicile Certificate as well as PRC for rural.

Area of Karachi (East) on the ground that he had obtained his higher education in Steel Town, where his father is a General Manager and also residing for the last four years in a quarter allotted to him by Pakistan Steel.

2. We have heard Mr. Shamsuddin Khalid, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Rehanul Hassan Faruqui, Advocate for respondent No,1 NED University; Syed Sarfraz Ahmed. Additional Advocate-General for respondent No,2 and Mr. Rasheed A. Rizvi, Advocate for respondent No,5. Respondent No,3 has not appeared.

3. As observed, it has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fact about issuance of previous Domicile Certificate and PRC of urban area had not been mentioned anywhere in the memo. Of petition nor copies of such certificates filed. This amounts to concealment of relevant facts and on this ground alone this petition is liable to be dismissed .

4. We may add here that on being questioned, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the previous Domicile Certificate and PRC issued sometime in February, 1991, were illegal documents and that is why they were surrendered. The position that emerges is that till the end of February, 1991, the stand taken by the petitioner before the concerned authorities was that he. Was a permanent resident of an urban area of Karachi. Although copies of the affidavits filed by the petitioner and perhaps by his father in connection with grant of previous Domicile Certificate and PRC have not been filed, the said affidavit must have contained statements on solemn affirmation by the petitioner and perhaps by his father also that the petitioner and his father were permanent residents of North Nazimabad. In one month i,e. In March; 1991, the position could not have changed so as to entitle the petitioner to claim that he was a permanent resident of rural area of Karachi. On merits also, no case is made out by the petitioner for admission to a seat reserved for rural areas of Karachi.

5. C.P. No,D-662 of 1991 is accordingly dismissed with costs in favour of the respondent No,1. .

' Miscellaneous No,1414/1991 has become infructuous.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search