SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 11-9- 2001 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, in Writ Petition No,1012 of 2001.
2. Petitioner has called in question the action of respondents Nos.1 to 5, whereby she was refused admission in Jinnah College for Women, University of Peshawar, against the seats reserved for sports. She acquired various certificates issued by the respective schools witnessing that she had been playing various games in the schools in addition to the Provisional Certificate of qualifying S.S.C. Annual Examination, 2001. Petitioner secured 677 marks in the examination held by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar. According to the Prospectus of the Jinnah College for Women, University of Peshawar, for the year 2000-2001, 5% of the total seats are reserved for admission on sports basis. Petitioner participated in the sports trial, but was unsuccessful, therefore, could not be admitted. Decision of the Selection Committee dated 27-6- 2001 relied upon by respondents reflects that the meeting of Sports Trial Committee was attended by twelve officials of the College including the Principal of the College, Director Sports and those who signed minutes dated 20-7-2001. The conclusion of the meeting is as under:-- "After thorough discussion, the Committee agreed upon the following decision:--
1. F.Sc. Part I. Class: None of the candidates was found up to the standard to be recommended for admission against the sports seat.
2, F,A, Part I Class: Miss Sadia Khalid die Khalid Kaleem was recommended for admission to F,A Part I, Class on the basis of her best performance. No other candidate was found up to the required standard for admission on sports basis,"
3. After the refusal of the respondents to admit the petitioner against sports seat, she filed a Constitutional Petition in the Peshawar High Court, praying that respondents be directed to allow admission to her in the 1st year F.Sc. Against one of the seats reserved for sports. Vide order dated 15-8-2001, the petitioner was allowed provisional admission, but, later on, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned High Court vide impugned judgment dated 11-9-2001, hence, this petition.
4. Mr. M.Akram Sheikh, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for petitioner, inter alia, contended that the impugned judgment is bad in law and facts and based on misinterpretation of provisions of the Prospectus of the College for the year 2000-2001; that the denial of admission to the petitioner is illegal and without lawful authority and of no legal effect; that finalization of admission by the Admission Committee does not mean that the Sports Trial Committee's decision can be overruled or interfered with by it and great injustice has been done to petitioner; that the petitioner is protected by the doctrine of indoor management as well as principle of locus poenitentiae and question of law of great public importance is involved in this matter.
5. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 5 vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner and pointed out that the doctrine of indoor management in the educational institutions is not available. The provisional admission in college also does not confer right of locus poenitentiae on the petitioner. He controverted the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner and pointed out that the Committee's decision relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner was not the final selection of the candidates for admission, whereas meeting of the Sports Trial Committee for admission to 1st year in the College for the Sessions 2000-2001 on sports basis was held in the office of the Principal and after thorough discussion, only Miss Sadia Khalid daughter of Khalid Kaleem was recommended for admission. Minutes of the Committee, available at page 6 of the paper book Part II show that the petitioner was not found fit to be admitted against the sports quota. Mr.Sheikh, however, conceded that petitioner has since been granted admission in the College in the evening classes against general seats and she is receiving education in the College.
6. Mr. Imtiaz Ali Khan, Additional Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P., supported the impugned judgment of the High Court.
7. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and examined the record with utmost care. No doubt, keeping in view the report of the Sports Trial Selection Committee, dated 20-7-2001 (available at page 45 of the paper book), petitioner was granted provisional admission in the College, but in final selection of the Committee she was unsuccessful. Therefore, in view of the selection made by the Committee, petitioner was denied admission vide minutes dated 26-7-2001 (available at page 18 of the paper book). The contention of the learned counsel for respondents No,1--5 that petitioner is receiving educaiton in the evening classes of the College against general seats, has not been denied or controverted by learned counsel for petitioner. The sole purpose of petitioner in approaching the Courts is to get education in the College, which has already been allowed by the College authorities to her on general seats in the evening classes but not on the sports basis as claimed by petitioner.
8. There does not appear to be misreading or non-reading of, material evidence, or misconstruction of law. We also do not find any jurisdictional error or material illegality in the impugned judgment, which is not open to exception.
9. Furthermore, no question of law of public importance, as contemplated under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is involved in this petition.
10. In view of what has been discussed above, there is no merit and substance in this petition, which is hereby dismissed along with Miscellaneous Applications, and leave declined.