| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 1440 2001 SLD 1440 = 2001 SCMR 1161 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 758, 759, 760, 761, 765, 766, 768, 769,772, 876, 887, 888, 889, 48 of 2000 and Civil Petition No.1905 of 2000, decision dated: 22-03-2001. dates of hearing:15th, 16th and 17-01-2001
MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI, NAZIM HUSSIAN SIDDIQUI AND RANA BHAGWAN DAS, JJ
M. Sardar Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As.Nos.758, 766, 887 and 888 of 1998). Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C. As. Nos. 876, 1302. of 1998 and C. P.No. 1905 of 2000). Mansoor Ahmad, De
Civil Appeals Nos. 758, 759, 760, 761, 765, 766, 768, 769,772, 876, 887, 888, 889, 48 of 2000 and Civil Petition No.1905 of 2000, decision dated: 22-03-2001. dates of hearing:15th, 16th and 17-01-2001
MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI, NAZIM HUSSIAN SIDDIQUI AND RANA BHAGWAN DAS, JJ
M. Sardar Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As.Nos.758, 766, 887 and 888 of 1998). Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C. As. Nos. 876, 1302. of 1998 and C. P.No. 1905 of 2000). Mansoor Ahmad, De
Mst. ATTIYYA BIBI KHAN and others
VS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary of Education (Ministry of Education), Civil Secretariat, Islamabad and others --Respondents
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 25, 254, 22, 25, 29, 37(c), 18 & 2A
(a) Educational institutionAdmission to Medical CollegeCandidates for admission were the real contesting parties; and to safeguard their individual interest. they had also challenged the entitlement of the rival candidatesFate of such rival candidates could not be decided without affording them an opportunity of being heard.Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Abdul Wali Khan PLD 1975 SC 463; Syed Ahmed Saeed Kirmani v. Punjab Province and others 1982 CLC 590 and Mussarat Uzma Usmani and another v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Health, Lahore and another PLD 1987 Lah. 178 distinguished.(b) Maxim----"Audi alteram partem"ApplicabilityAdmission to Medical College�Candidates for admission were the real contesting parties, and to safeguard their individual interest, they had also challenged the entitlement of the rival candidatesFate of such rival candidates could not be decided without affording them an opportunity of being heard.Mushtaq Ahmed Mohal v. The Lahore High Court and others 1997 SCMR 1041 ref.(c) Educational institutionAdmission to Medical CollegesLocus poenitentiae, principle of-�Application Phrase "till a decisive step is taken"SignificanceRelevant Authority though could recede before "decisive step" was taken, but when admissions in the college were granted to the candidates, in accordance with the prospectus, and the results were communicated to them before the Constitutional petitions were filed, they had not committed any wrong�Decisive steps in the matters thus were already taken and thereafter steps contrary to their interest could not be taken and principle of locus poenitentiae was attracted in these cases.Pakistan and another v. S. Hussain Ali Shah A. Fazalani PLD 1960 SC (Pak.) 310 and Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi PLD 1969 SC 407ref.Per Rana Bhagwan Das, J. ---.(d) Educational institutionAdmission to Medical CollegeCandidates whose process of selection and admission had been finalized before the verdict of High Court on the subject, would not be affected by the judgment of High Court especially when they were not party to the proceedings before the High Court as they had…