MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- The petitioner migrated from the Indian Held Kashmir in the year 1990 and took refuge in a Refugee Camp at Muzaffarabad. He did his Matriculation and then did F.Sc.
Pre-Engineering securing 521 out of 1100 marks. He applied for admission to an Engineering College through the All Parties Hurriat Conference and an application was sent to respondent No. 3. After process the case for his admission to the respondent University was approved for the Session 2000-2001. This information did not reach the petitioner in time and consequently he again filed an application for Session 20012002 which was processed in a similar manner. The Federal Government forwarded the application to the respondents for admission in B.Sc. Mechanical Engineering as a foreign national for the said Session. The requisite documents were supplied and the Admission Committee issued a call letter to him and he was admitted in the said University. He was registered as a regular student vide letter dated 21.1.2002 and started attending his classes when on 9.5.2002 he was expelled from the University on the ground that his marks in the F.Sc.
Examination were below the minimum standard for admission in the University. The Federal Government in its parawise comments filed in this Court on 19.7.2002 has supported the case of the petitioner. The respondent University, however, has stated that the petitioner has been rightly expelled in terms of clause,34.5 of the Prospectus.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no denial that the petitioner had submitted all his papers and it was 'thereafter that admission was granted to him and thereafter he was registered as a regular student and as such Rule of locus poenitentiae will apply. Relies on the case of Chairman, Selection Committee/Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore and 2 others v. Wasif Zamir Ahmad' and another (1997 SCM R 15). Learned counsel for the respondents University, on the other hand, contends that since the petitioner did not fulfill the requirements he was correctly expelled under the said clause 34.5.
3. I have examined the respective pleadings of the parties and the documents placed on record by them. I find that there is no denial that all the requisite documents including the said F.Sc. Results were produced by the petitioner and it was only thereafter that he was not only granted admission but later was registered as a regular student. Now I may reproduce the said clause 34.5 being relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents:- 34.5. Provisional Admission.
"On fulfilment of the obligations mentioned in 34.2 a selectee will be admitted to the University. This admission shall however, be provisional until all the original degrees or certificates submitted by him have been checked for their veracity. In case any document proves to be false, fake, or fabricated at a later stage, a provisionally admitted student shall be liable to expulsion from the university and to any other disciplinary or legal action the university may deem fit. Moreover, all the fees and charges deposited by him shall stand forfeited in favour of the university."
Now a bare reading of the said clause would show that the petitioner could not have been expelled by the respondent University in terms of the same. Now to my mind, under the said clause a student can be expelled only if he has been provisionally admitted and upon proof that any document or certificate filed by him is proved to be false, fake or fabricated at a later stage. It is a matter of record and the learned counsel for the respondents is in no position to even allege that an document filed by the petitioner was found to be false , fake or fabricated. It may be true that as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents the result in the F.Sc. Examination was not upto the standard sets by the respondent University but it cannot at all be said that the petitioner is guilty of any of the acts stated in the said clause 34.5 so as to authorise the respondent University to expel him. So far as the said matter of less marks in. F.Sc. Is concerned, that was a matter to be checked before granting admission to the petitioner and not thereafter. Since there is no allegation chat the petitioner has committed or even has attempted to commit any fraud or falsification of documents the case is squarely covered by the said case of Chairman, Selection Committee/Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore and 2 others v. Wasif Zamir Ahmad and another (1997 SCM R 15), being relied upon by Mr. Mujeebur Rehman's Kiani, Advocate.
4. For all that has been stated above, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 9.5.2002 of the respondents expelling the petitioner from University is set aside.