' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---Muhammad Shafi Dogar, the father of Miss Waheeda Shafi, the review petitioner herein was appointed as Overseer (Civil) on 11th of August, 1971 in the University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore. He was transferred to the University College of Engineering and Technology, Taxila on 19th of November, 1978. This order was, nonetheless, cancelled on 15th of August, 1985. In the result, he was retransferred to Lahore. In the month of October 1993, the University College of Engineering, Taxila was given the status of University of Engineering and Technology. The petitioner passed her (F.Sc.) Examination in Pre-Engineering. She, therefore, gave an application to the University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila for her admission on the plea that her father had served the institution for about seven years. In other words, her case was that in view of Rule 27.11, Category 'M' Undergraduate Prospectus, 1994 Entry, she was entitled as a matter of right to get admission. The University Authorities did not accept her plea. On the basis of open merit, she could not get admission. In this situation, Writ Petition No,64 of 1995 was instituted by the petitioner which was dismissed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench o 26th of January, 1995 holding that the case of the petitioner did not fall under Rule 27.11, Category 'M'. An Intra-Court Appeal was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed on 17th of July, 1995. A petition for leave to appeal was instituted which was heard and dismissed by this. Court on 4th of February, 1996. Through this application, review of the aforesaid order has been sought.
2. Learned counsel has submitted that rule 27.11 clause (b) of the University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila Under-Graduate Prospectus for 1994-Entry, if it is read as a whole, would cover the case of the petitioner for her admission despite the fact that her father had already left the service of the University at the relevant time. Learned counsel adds that the prevailing law had to be applied by the Court whether or not it was brought to its notice at the time of hearing of the case. In support of plea, learned counsel relies upon Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education v. Mst. Salma Afroze PLD 1992 SC 263; Abdullah Khan v. Nisar Muhammad Khan PLD 1965 SC 690 and Syed Sajjad Hussain v. Secretary, Establishment Division and 2 others 1996 SCM R 284.
3. The point raised by the learned counsel needs further examination. Review petition is, accordingly, admitted to .Regular hearing. Notice to the respondents shall issue for an early date.