MEHAR ALI Versus PRINCIPAL ABBOTTABAD PUBLIC SCHOOL, ABBOTTABAD
SYED MUHAMMAD ATTIQUE SHAH, J. ---Mehr Ali and seven others, petitioners approached this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by filing the instant writ petition, with the following prayer:-
"It is therefore, humbly prayed that on acceptance of the instant writ petition, the impugned letter dated 06.02.2018 may kindly be set aside and respondents be directed to give admissions to petitioners in 1st year class 2018. Any other relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. In essence, the grievance of the petitioners is that they being eligible were entitled to be granted admission in 1st year class in Abbottabad Public School, Abbottabad, however, respondent No.1 refused admission to the petitioners with mala fide, as a result thereof, the petitioners were deprived of their right to receive education and that they were not treated by the respondents in accordance with law.
3. The respondents contested the present writ petition and in this regard, respondent No.1 submitted his parawise comments. In the comments, the respondents took the plea that the petitioners have been treated in accordance with law and the rules powering the admission in 1st year class.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were eligible to be admitted in First year class, however, the respondents are creating unlawful hurdles for their admission, which act of the respondents is illegal, based on malice and mala fide and similarly it is detrimental to their established rights.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the submissions or learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not fulfilled the criteria for admission to the 1st year class, as provided in section 9 of Prospectus of the College and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties heard and the available record perused.
6. Perusal of record reveals that petitioners were admitted in the school in 7th class and have passed their Secondary School Certificate examination and they were seeking their admission to Ist year class. However, the respondents declined admission to the petitioners due to their poor performance and their failure to get the required grade necessary for admission to the said class. In this regard, this Court would like to refer Clause 9 of the Prospectus of the College, for the sake of convenience and ready reference:
"9. The requirement for admission to the Ist year class is minimum "B" grade internally and "A" grade externally. The aggregate of the internal and external exams decides the merit and first 70 boys are offered admissions to both the groups. However, there is no restriction on the selection of a group. Boys who are placed higher on the merit list can choose any of the these two groups in case any seat falls vacant, the next boy on the merit list will be offered admission in a group he wishes."
In view of the above criteria, the petitioners were required to have secured the required minimum grade "B" internally but they could not qualify the said criteria, which resulted in refusal admission to them in 1st year class, in view of admission policy approved by Board of Governors in its meeting held on 12.04.2017. The said policy was duly circulated to all the parents of 9th and 10th class students through SMS and housemasters. It is evident from record of the case that according to the admission policy, "only those APS students will be admitted in Ist year who secure minimum "A" grade in SSC in Board exams and minimum "B" grade in internal exams (average of 4 best out of 6 exams in 9th and 10th) with good track record". However, all the petitioners have secured average "D" grade in the internal exams and therefore they were directed to seek admission elsewhere. It may be mentioned here that during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents produced a list showing that the petitioners have obtained school leaving certificates and some of them got admission in other educational institutions.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners failed to persuade this Court that the petitioners' failure in getting the required Grade in internal exams is the result of any mala fide or malice on the part of the respondents. However, while going through the rule (ibid) applicable to the case of the petitioners, it is quite clear from the said rule that if a student failed to get the required grade "B" internally or grade "A" externally, then they would not be eligible for admission to first year class. Thus, there seems no element of discrimination in the case of the petitioners. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any violation of the rules by the respondents in refusing admission to the petitioners. The College is being regulated under the rules (ibid) and interference in the affairs of admission by this Court is not legally justified, as it would make the entire system of the institution hampered.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court reached at the conclusion that the present writ petition being bereft of merits is dismissed.
ZC/28/P Petition dismissed.