(ii) That the intended act of official respondents by. Changing the technology of the petitioner at a belated stage in unwarranted and against the admission policy.
(iii) That the. Notification dated l2.2.1997 issued by the official respondents granting admission to the petitioner and respondents has not been challenged either by the official or private respondents.
1. The learned counsel relied on the following case law:-
(a) Pakistan through the Secretary of Defence v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farooqi &. 4 others (PLD 1969 SC 407).
(b) Chairman Selection Committee/Principal. King Edward iMedical College, Lahore and 2 others v.
2. Wasif Zameer Ahmad and another (1997 SCMR 15).
3. Mr. Noor Muhammad Achakzai. Additional Advocate General opposing the petition stated that as per merit list the petitioner was entitled to admission in Metallergy as he had lesser marks than respondents 3 and 4 but due to interference of Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali the then Care-taker Chief Minister the technology of the petitioner was changed from Metallergy to Electrical. The learned counsel further drew our attention to the Notification dated 12.2.1997 wherein at page 59 of the petition at S. No. 13 below the name of respondent No.3 the following note has been written:- "Note as per instructions contained in D.O. Letter of Honourable Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali his technology goes to Abdul Ghaffar son of Sultan Ahmad Round No. 4. S. No. 11."Similarly at page 61 of the petitioner at S. No. 11 below the name of the petitioner it has been observed:"Note as per instructions contained in D.O. Letter of Honourable Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali he has obtained Electrical Technology."2. Mr. Noor Muhammad Achakzai learned Additional Advocate- General candidly conceded that Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali had no jurisdiction to have issued directions for changing of the technology of petitioner and the respondents. He further admitted that the said instructions issued by the then Chief Minister are in excess of authority.3. Mr. Gohar Yaqoob Yousufzai learned counsel for respondents 3 and4 adopted the arguments of learned Additional Advocate General and further stated that writ cannot be issued to perpetuate illegality.4. We have perused the record and have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. From the perusal of the record it reveals that prior to allotting technology to students the petitioner approached Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, the then Care-taker Chief Minister who in tum issued instructions to the official respondents to grant electrical technology to the petitioner instead of mechanical or metallurgy. Therefore, on such instructions the official respondents while deviating from electrical technology to respondent No. 3 and Metallurgy to respondent No. 4. Admittedly the petitioner had lesser marks and he was not entitled to the said technology on merits and Mr. Zafarullah Khan Jamali had no jurisdiction to issue directions to the official respondents to give the technology of Electrical Engineering to the petitioner. Such directions were not according to rules and in excess of authority.The arguments advanced by Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is entitled to cany' on his studies in the Electrical Technology' on the principle of locus Poenitentiae has no force, thus repelled. We do agree with the said centention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The case-law' relied by him is distinguishable, the principle of locus Poenitentiae is not applicable to the case in hand as the petitioner had obtained the Electrical Engineering through the interference of the then Care-taker Chief Minister who had no authority' to direct official respondents to change the technology, of the petitioner, as he obtained the same illegally and through manipulation as such principle of locus Poenitentiae w'ould not be applicable.
4. Reliance is placed on Dr. Amanul Haq and 2 others v. Punjab Public Senice Commission and another (PLD 1989 Lah. 196) and The Engineer-in-Chief Branch through Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and another v. Jalaluddin (PLD 1992 SC 207). In the former case it was observed as under:-"A person having recourse to the discretionary and equitable Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court cannot reasonably pray to this Court to come to his aitf and to grant his desire to thrive through a strange set of intentional or unintentional errors at the Cost of legal right of another individual. In my humble view, the plea of locus Poenitentiae is not available to a person in case where the order or the action relied upon may be found to be without jurisdiction or in excess thereof. No right can be claimed or superstructure of rights built upon orders which are void or complete nullities in law."In the latter case the Honourable Supreme Court observed as under:- "Lochs Poenitentiae is the power of receding iii) a decisive siep is taken. Bui it is not a principle of law that order once passed becomes irrevocable and it is past and closed transaction. If the order is illegal then perpetual rights canriOt be gained on the basis of an: illegal order." 1It is an established principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction cannot be exercised in favour of retention of ill-gotton gains anti it is further obser'e^h31 : the object of writ jurisdiction is to foster justice and not to perpetuate an illegality, reference is made to S.K. Masood and 3 others v. Special .Committee through Member Board of Revenue (Settlement and Rehabilitatioiu and Secretary to Punjab Government and others (1990 CLC 1174) and Mitnjri Khan^md others y. Faridoon and 5 others (1995 SCMR678>.For the fore-going reasons we see no merits in the petition, the same is dismissed leas ing the parties to bear their own costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.