KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.-- Petitioner was admitted to the respondent-University to study the M.Sc. Colse in the subject of Mechatronics for the Sessions 2000-2001. Petitioner asserts that he was admitted on 7.2.2001, he deposited the college dues/charges . On 15.2.2001 and started attending the classes. Vide letter dated 15.3.2001 the petitioner's 'admission has been cancelled. It is this cancellation which is challenged in this Constitutional petition. The impugned letter states that the petitioner is informed that his provisional admission, is cancelled. No reason is contained.
2. Respondent-University has submitted his comments in which it is claimed that the admission was provisional and subject to verification of the certificates/testimonials. It is stated that photocopy of the Detailed Marks Certificates has been found fake and bogus. Petitioner was repeatedly asked to produce the originals but he did not. It is claimed that petitioner appeared on 9.4.2001 before the competent authority with another set of Detailed Marks Certificates which are entirely different from previous certificates in many respects. It is also averred that the bogus certificates produced by the petitioner were sent to Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Mirpur, Azad Kashmir for verification. The reply sent by the Principal of the College of Engineering and Technology, Al-khair University Mirpur was that the petitioner "has never been the student of Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Al-Khair University, Mirpur, AJ&K. The subject D.M.C's were also not issued by this Faculty. The registration number is also not correct................. " it is claimed that petitioner sought correction of the D.M.C's from Deputy Controller Examination, Al-khair University, Lahore but the revised D.M.C's do not bear the seal or stamp of the official signing the same. It is further stated "it is rather strange that the detailed marks certificates were prepared and issued to the petitioner at the same moment at Islamabad subsequently " In para-6 clause (d) it is stated "that the maximum marks in the subject of Computer Software Engineering are 50 but the marks obtained by the petitioner in this subject are 80. This is impossible, unjustified and unbelievable. More over this is not typographical mistake because the total marks of 3rd year examination are 900 by counting 50 marks " It is stated that the provisional admission is always subject to verification of the documents and as the documents were found bogus, the admission was rightly cancelled.
3. It is 'contended by the learned counsel that petitioner is in possession of set of documents issued by Lahore Campus of AlKhair University which entitle the petitioner to get admission. Learned counsel was advised to present these documents to the university and it is for the university to decide about their correctness and authenticity and to accept or reject them. It is not part of this Court's function to appraise these documents. AI-Khair University was created by an Act passed by AJ&K Assembly. Its -seat is Mir Pur, AJ&K. Learned counsel has not been able to explain as to how there are campuses of this University at Lahore and Islamabad. No University can operate within the territory assigned to the Punjab University, without the permission of latter. It is well known that every student of the University is registered. Assuming that Campuses at Lahore and Islamabad are validly operating, registration of every student is still at the seat of the University viz Mirpur. As claimed in the comments, which claim has not been contested, the reply from Mirpur is that the petitioner has never been the student nor the D.M.C's were issued by that Faculty. It is equally strange that in one subject of Computer Software Engineering which carry 50 marks petitioner is shown to have obtained 80.Marks. How this is possible, equally remains a mystery.
4. In the circumstances noted above, the action of- the University does not seem to be illegal. In any case, the conduct of the petitioner is such which disentitles him to claim any equitable relief from this Court. (Reference PLD 1973 SC 236).
5. This petition is dismissed with costs.