' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J---This Intra-Court Appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 8-3-1993 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The appellant was a candidate for admission in MEd. Classes in Education Department, Baha- ud-Din Zakriya University, Multan for the Session 1992-1993. The admission was made on merits on the basis of divisional quota and other reserved seats and after fulfilling all seats a waiting list was prepared to fill the seats subsequently fell vacant. Mst. Zarina Kausar respondent No,3 securing 567 marks out of the waiting list was given admission on 6-11-1992 against a seat fell vacant of quota of Multan Division because of absence of Imtiaz Ahmad. Mst. Rashida Faiz respondent No,5 filed a writ petition seeking direction for admission as per her entitlement on merits against the vacant seats.
Comments to the writ petition were called from the University and during pendency of writ petition she was allowed provisional admission under the direction of the learned Single Bench and subsequently the writ petition was finally accepted on 8-3-1993. Tanveer Ahmad petitioner who had obtained 733 marks also filed writ petition on 14-2-1993 seeking admission in M.Ed. Classes for the session 1992-93 on the basis of higher marks to that of Mst. Zarina Kausar and Mst. Rashida Faiz which was dismissed for the reason of it being suffered from laches and that his name in the waiting list being much below, he was not entitled to be given admission as per merit list. The other ground was that 75% to 90% of the course had already been completed and even if the appellant was given admission he would not be qualifying for examination due to shortage of requisite lectures. This factual position having not been controverted the writ petition was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant secured 733 marks which is a much higher position to that of Mst. Zarina and Mst. Rashida Faiz but was not given admission for the reason best known to the University authorities. He submits that after selection on merits, a vacancy if fell vacant was to be filled on the basis of merits and not for any other consideration. He questioned the admission of Mst. Zarina Kausar and Mst. Rashida Faiz on the ground of undue favour and discrimination.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No,5 has pointed out that a seat fell vacant subsequently was to be filled from waiting list on merits subject to divisional quota. He has submitted that the appellant belongs to Bahawalpur Division and could not be accommodated against the vacancy of divisional quota of Multan. He clarified that seat fell vacant on account of the absence of Imtiaz Ahmad belongs to quota of Multan Division and Zarina Kausar was accommodated against a vacant seat of Multan Division. Similarly Mst. Rashida Faiz was accommodated against another seat of Multan Division as per direction of the learned Single Bench of this Court. Therefore the appellant has no case to agitate for admission on the basis of higher number to that of Mst.
Rashida Faiz and Mst. Zarina Kausar respondents.
5. Mian Muhammad Zafar Yasin, Advocate learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mst. Zarina Kausar argued that the admission of Mst: Zarina Kausar was not challenged and the judgment dated 8-3-1993 passed in W.P. No, 943 of 1993 filed by Mst. Rashida Faiz has also not been questioned. There being no petition against the admission of Mst. Zarina Kausar and appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by Mst. Rashida Faiz, their admission cannot be questioned on the ground of discrimination.
6. It shall be appropriate to first dispose of the objections raised by the learned counsel for respondents Nos3 to 5 with regard to impleading them as party and questioning their admission in the present appeal. This is admitted position that the judgment given in Writ Petition No,943/1993 filed by Mst. Rashida Faiz has attained finality. The appellant was neither party to the writ petition nor he being aggrieved of the judgment in the said petition challenged the same. He, however, impleaded Mst. Rashida Faiz as respondent in Writ Petition No,633/1993 filed by him and challenged her admission on the ground of discrimination as enunciated under Article 25 of the Constitution.
Mst. Zarina Kausar respondent No3 was given admission by the University which was not challenged by the appellant as such rather he on the basis of her admission prayed for the same relief. However both Mst. Rashida Faiz and Mst. Zarina Kausar were impleaded as respondents by the appellant in his writ petition.
7. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for these respondents and are of the view that by impleading them as respondents in the writ petition and in Intra-Court Appeal, admission given to them cannot be struck down as their admission was not impugned in the writ petition or in the Intra-Court Appeal rather the same is being used as ground for the relief prayed and, therefore, the admission of both these girls attained finality.
8. The question for determination is the entitlement of appellant for admission in the sessions 1992- 1993. The whole case of the appellant is that he secured higher marks than the two girls who were accommodated and, therefore, he be also adjusted against the seat given to them or otherwise as the case may be. The scheme of university for admission is not only on the basis of highest marks to fill all seats but the highest marks for the open merits on the basis of divisional quota and seats allocated to special quota. All students throughout the Province are not supposed to compete for all seats on the basis of open merits. The higher marks of the appellant are relevant for the purpose of his own division and not against seats of each division unless transferred to open merit seats, therefore, the case of the appellant does not fall under Article 25 of the Constitution. No doubt an arbitrary discrimination is prohibited under the said Article of the Constitution but discrimination on the basis of reasonable ground is not debarred except in case of female. The name of the appellant in the waiting list falls somewhere in the bottom and as per waiting list he was not entitled to be accommodated even against a seat fell vacant and transferred to open merit quota.
Mst. Zarina Kausar was adjusted in her own right against a seat of Multan Division. The appellant filed the writ petition at a belated stage with no special right or entitlement on a technical ground questioning the admission of two girls securing against the vacant seats of Multan Division. The appellant being from Bahawalpur Division has no right or claim against the seats of Multan Division. Even on merits in the waiting list his position is much below and has no equality in his favour to be considered, therefore, he cannot claim equality by virtue of Article 25 of the Constitution.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of University submits that all seats have already been filed and there is no scope even to create a seat to accommodate the appellant as a special case.
It is not possible for this Court to direct the University Authorities to create an additional seat in the current sessions or to adjust him for the next sessions. The appellant if is succeeded in getting admission at this stage, he shall not be qualified to sit in the examination of the current session for want of required number of lectures, meaning thereby the appellant shall be occupying a seat on the basis of merits for 1992-93 session for the session of 1993-94 and would definitely effect the rights of fresh candidates in the next session having the right of admission on their own merits.
Therefore, the request of the learned counsel for the appellant to accommodate the appellant in addition to the prescribed seats cannot be accepted. According to the prospectus of the University the seats allocated on the basis of divisional quota if fell vacant for some reason and remain unfilled could be transferred to the merits quota with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor. In the present case Mst. Rashida Faiz was adjusted against the seat of Multan Division, therefore, the appellant being from Bahawalpur Division cannot agitate for admission against the seat of Multan Division. Tauqeer Hussain another candidate was accommodated against the special quota of disabled person not transferable to merits quota even if a vacant seat of quota is not filled. The appellant has not been able to prove his right to challenge the seat of Tauqeer a disabled person.
' For the foregoing reasons we see no valid ground to interfere in the order impugned in the I.CA.
Which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.