1. The petitioner is claiming under a quota of five seats reserved for the nominees of Chief Minister, Sindh in the Quaid-e-Awam University of Engineering, Science and Technology, Nawabshah.
2. In the first place, the learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh, upon instructions, states that such quota has since stood abolished, something which should meet our approbation.
3. Nonetheless the controversy in this petition remains to be examined.
4. It is the case of the respondents that nominations were received by the University on 27-1-1997 and, instead of five, such were nine in number. On 28-1-1997, therefore, the .University wrote back and asked for a preference amongst the nine named nominees. None of those nine was the petitioner here. Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, the petitioner's learned counsel, himself concedes that the order on the petitioner's application viz., "admit" was passed not earlier than on 28-1-1997. Be that as it may, the fact remains that when the five nominees were ultimately sent to the University per letter, dated 19-2-1997 the list again did not include the petitioner. The petitioner says that this was unjust because, upon due additions and deductions of marks, as applicable, the petitioner ought to have been credited with 63.5 per cent. Such marks, which ranked him higher than the nominees at Serial Nos.3 to 5, none of whom has defended the petition.
5. It is correct that where such power to nominate exists and the nomination is to be made from an array of candidates merit cannot be ignored except in public interest. What such interest in a given case would be, it is needless to speculate but there can be generalizations such as meritorious services of a father, who has died in the cause of duty, the offspring benefitting or claims of destitute, otherwise left without succour or a fair and equitable distribution in the various territories from which the nominations are to be made and in short all hardship cases.
6. Even so, the petitioner has to confront the. fact that while the petitioner stood rejected and while of course the petition was pending, those who were nominated and admitted have taken and even qualified the first year Engineering Examination, something the petitioner could only do if provisional admission was allowed to the petitioner, which in this case was not. In such a scenario, where, the petitioner had been accorded provisional admission the above equities could be considered and such a one as did not qualify within the discussed parameters could be shown the way-out but, in the present circumstances, vested interests have arisen which cannot be lightly interfered with. No one can put the clock back and least of all the Courts of justice and law. We would here like to quote from our own observations in Farhan Ahmed v. Government of Sindh C.P.
7. No,D-2158 of 1996. This is what was said there:-- "However, the petitioner's learned counsel has pointed out that in this case a large number of students, who had purportedly been granted admissions under the so-called Chief Minister's quota, have been cited in person. The learned counsel says that if such students, who were the least qualified to be admitted in medical institutions, are to be allowed to continue such course of study, they will play havoc with the society. We have little to dispute the assertion on the part of the learned counsel. However, those who have already been in medical institutions for two years and those for whom examinations have already commenced for the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Class have acquired some interests, which cannot be totally disregarded. For these reasons, while we would pass a similar order in this petition as in the precedent case we, at this stage of the controversy, would suffice to caution the College and University Authorities to maintain constant vigil and surveillance as regards the performance of the referred students inducted under the so- called quota and if and when it is found that any of them has not sufficiently improved so as to come up to the minimum standards and does not deserve to continue the course of study undertaken strict action in accordance with the rules shall follow. Subject to this disposed of."
8. We are bound by the rule, which we ourselves have laid down. Such cannot be deviated from. This petition, therefore, is dismissed.