' MAMOON KAZI, J.---This petition was dismissed by us by a short order, dated 4-11-1991 for reasons to be separately recorded. We now proceed to give our reasons for the said order.
2. The petitioner, according to him, has his residence in Karachi. He acquired his Secondary School Certificate in Grade "A" from Government High School Rato Dero, District Larkana in the year 1986.
The petitioner also passed his H.S.C., examination held by the. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sukkur, but upon the declaration of his result, it was found that he could not compete in order to get admission in the N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi, therefore, in order to improve his percentage the petitioner repeated his H.S.C. Examination and obtained 786 marks out of 1100. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for admission for the course of Bachelor of Engineering in the said University. The petitioner was eligible for admission under category 10.2.1(b) for which, accordingly to the Prospectus issued by the said University in the year 1990-91, the number of seats available was 489. After 14-3-1991, which was the date for submission of admission form for the said category, a provisional merit list mentioning the names of successful students to the first year Engineering classes in the said University was published in the National Newspapers including Daily "Dawn" in its issue of the 4th May, 1991. The case of the petitioner is that although in view of the marks secured by the petitioner his name merited to be mentioned in the said list at Serial No,422, but the petitioner found his name missing from the said list. The petitioner wanted to obtain information as to why his name was not included in the provisional merit list but the entry of the petitioner in the said University was totally stopped, and hence the present petition.
3. Parawise comments have been filed by respondent No,1. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner had failed to submit particulars in regard to his father as required by clause 17 in the Prospectus issued by the said respondent for the year 1990-91, consequently he was not considered for admission. No doubt, the petitioner had supplied particulars in respect of his brother who according to him was his guardian. However, it could not be established after investigation that the petitioner's brother was his guardian.
4. It is pertinent to point out that in paragraph No,11 of the memorandum of petition a plea has been taken by the petitioner that he lives with his guardian/brother on account of circumstances beyond his or his family's control but no further details have been provided by the petitioner in this regard except for the fact that the petitioner is being supported by his brother. It is also an admitted position that none of the documents submitted by the petitioner alongwith his admission form related to his father. Learned counsel for respondent No,1, has produced before us the original admission form filed by the petitioner at the time of seeking admission in the said University which shows that the said form had been submitted through his brother who had signed the same as guardian of the petitioner.
5. Mr. Raja Qureshi has stated before us that the father of the petitioner Ghulam Rasool Soomro had abandoned the petitioner's family and since then his whereabouts were not known to the family. Consequently, according to him, the petitioner was not in a position to confirm whether his father was still alive at the time of the submission of the admission form by him. However, no such plea has been taken by the petitioner himself in the Memorandum of petition.
6. In the background of the aforesaid circumstances, reference may now be made to clause No,17, in the Prospectus issued for the year 1990-91 by the said University which provides as follows:--
17. Domicile and PRC.
17.1:
(a) The candidates for admission on merit under categories 10.2.1(a), 10.2.(b), 10.2.3(b) (i), 10.2.3(b)
(ii), 10.2.9, 10.2.10 and 10.2.1 must be domiciled of Karachi Division (Province of Sindh) and Permanent Residents of Karachi Division. They must also have passed their S.S.C., H.S.C, and or any other qualifying examinations from the educational institution situated in Karachi Division only.
Candidates for admission under the above categories must submit with their application forms certified photostat copies of domicile of Karachi Division. (Province of Sindh) anti permanent Residence Certificate of Karachi Division. However, those candidates who have passed their S.S.C., H.S.0 and or any other qualifying examinations from the institutions located outside the Karachi Division must be required to produce the respective additional documents as detailed below:
(b) Children of Government servants: If the father of the applicant is a Government servant who belongs to Karachi Division but is serving in any other part of Pakistan, then the father should produce a Certificate from the Head of his Department affirming that he is a Domicile of Karachi Division (Province of Sindh). It shall be necessary in such cases that the period of the applicant's study corresponds with the period of posting of the father in the Area.
(c) Others: Applicants other than those at (a) and (b) above will have to submit following additional document in support of their Domicile Certificates.
(i) An attested photocopy of father's Domicile Certificate of Karachi Division (Province of Sindh).
(ii) Documentary proof from the Election Officer of concerned Area of Karachi Division to the effect that the name of the applicant's father appears in the electoral roll.
(iii) An attested photocopy of the relevant page of the electoral rolls on which the name of the applicant's father appeaRs,
(iv) An attested photocopy of the National Identity Card of the Applicant's father.
(d) Applicant whose father is not alive; In case applicant's father is not alive and the document mentioned at (b) and (c) above cannot be produced the applicant should submit.
(i) Documentary evidence of his father's immovable property in the Province of Sindh (Karachi Division);
(ii) Documentary proof of his father's death.
6-A As is evident from clause No,17.1, paragraph (a) the said paragraph enjoins upon the petitioner to produce additional documents enumerated in paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of the said clause as the case may be, as the petitioner has not passed his S.S.C. And H.S.C. Examinations from the institutions located in Karachi. Paragraph (b) was not applicable to him, since the same was applicable to children of Government servants which admittedly the petitioner is not. Paragraph
(d) was also not applicable to the petitioner, as it was not his case that his father was not alive.
Consequently, the petitioner was clearly governed by paragraph (c) of the said clause which required him to submit additional documents enumerated therein along his admission form.
Admittedly such documents were not supplied by the petitioner to respondent No,1. Mr. Raja Qureshi, has argued that the petitioner could not confirm to the requirements of the said paragraph, since the whereabouts of his father were not known to him or his family and since the petitioner was being looked after by his brother he had supplied the particulars of his brother and therefore, sufficient compliance had been made by the petitioner with the requirements of the said clause under the circumstances of the case. Mr. Rehanul Hasan Farooqui, learned counsel for the respondent No,1 has, on the other hand, argued that clause No,17 in the said Prospectus fails to make any reference to a guardian and consequently, the documents supplied by the petitioner alongwith his admission form in no way could fulfil the requirements of the said clause.
7. A perusal of the entire clause No,17 indicates that it contemplates two kinds of situations, via, (1) where the candidate's father is alive and (2) where his father is not alive. In case where the candidate's father is alive, he would be required to provide documents enumerated in paragraph
(b) or (c), as the case may be. However, where the candidate's father is not alive he would be required to submit only such documents which are enumerated in paragraph (d). No doubt, clause No,17 fails to contemplate a situation where the candidate may be supported by a guardian notwithstanding the fact that his father may be alive but in our opinion the same was not necessary because in that case the petitioner would be required to furnish particulars in accordance with paragraph (c), notwithstanding the fact that he is being supported by a guardian instead of his father. Since, in the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that his father is not alive, his case would be governed by paragraph (c) of the said regulation. The learned counsel for the petitioner teas argued that the whereabouts of the petitioner's father are not known to the petitioner or his family. But the contention is not supported by the averments made by the petitioner in his memorandum of petition. Since existence of such peculiar circumstances was neither shown by the petitioner to respondent No,1, nor such a plea has been specifically taken by him in this petition, the petitioner in our opinion, is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him. No doubt, in another case recently decided by us, relief was granted to the petitioner there, although he had supplied the particulars of his brother/guardian in pursuance of the requirements of paragraph (c) but in that case a plea was specifically taken before respondent No,1 as well as this Court that the whereabouts of his father were not known to him. Such is not the case in the present case, as pointed out earlier, since, admittedly the petitioner did not submit the documents required by paragraph (c) of clause No,17, his admission form under the circumstances was rightly rejected by respondent No,1.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, finding no force in the petition, we dismissed the same by the short order.