h1

PLD 1989 QUETTA 8

Per Amirul Mulk Mengal, J.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.22(4), 25, & 199-

In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions, it may be pointed out that sub-Article (4) of Article 22 of the Constitution empowers a public authority for making provisions for the advancement of socially or backward class of the citizens. As such this Article in fact protects the right of Provincial Government to frame policy as formulated by the Government of Baluchistan, in order for making advancement in education field. Government of Baluchistan, through it expedient and proper to frame aforesaid policy for admission in Engineering College, Khuzdar, and other Engineering Colleges of the country, with a view of advancement and protection of the education in backward class of citizens. Virtually this classification is regional classification, and as contended by learned Advocate-General Baluchistan, the purpose of this is protect rights of the students of this province cannot to study outside and thus, cannot compete those students with higher and better educational facilities. [p. 12] B.

It is clear from the aforesaid discussion that Article 22(4) does not control any other type of provisions which a public authority may make in the policy of admission. Such provisions are, therefore, permissible under the Constitution. As the Government has framed this policy with a view for advancement of education of backward areas and to protect rights of students of this Province, hence it is not violative nor it infringes any of the provisions of Article 22(4) of the Constitution.
[p. 14] C.

Article 25 of the Constitution deals with “equality of citizens” and “equal protection of law”. Equality of citizens does not mean that all laws must have the same rights and liabilities, that a citizen’s rights as a human being are not affected by reason of his descent, religion, social or official status, economic condition or place of birth or residence; and further that all citizens are equally subject to the general law of the land. This clause permits classification and as a matter of fact classifications are always proceeded on inequality because it cannot be assumed that citizens of a state are alike by nature or circumstances to one and another.

‘Equal protection of law’ means that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of laws which are enjoyed by other person or persons or class or classes in same circumstances. This constitutional guarantee in fact requires that all persons shall be treated alike under like and similar conditions. It connotes that equal protection of law means in similar circumstances, the same law will apply to the same class of peoples.

Judging the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the aforesaid parlance it can be easily stated that clause 2.12 of the admission policy is applicable to all students who seek admission in Engineering Colleges either in Baluchistan or from the quota of this Province in other colleges. This, therefore, cannot be said to be a clause being violative of equality clause as envisaged in Article 25 of the Constitution, for the simple reason that it applies to all students of this province, who get their education outside the province but fall to satisfy the selection committee that reasons of their doing so was beyond their control. Its application is common to all such students. In fact this clause does not restrict the students not to study in educational institutions outside the province, but it of course imposes such a restriction if such students seek admission in Engineering College of this province or quota of reserved seats for this Province and fail to satisfy Selection Committee that doing so was beyond their control. [p. 14] D.

We are afraid that we cannot substitute ourselves for assessing the reasons and drawing a different conclusion in Constitutional jurisdiction, in view of the contradictory stand taken by the petitioner. [p. 15] E.

Petition dismissed.

Advocate for the Petitioner:
Iftikhar Muhammad.

Advocate for the Respondents 1 to 4.
Muhammad Yaqub K. Yousafzal, Advocate-General.

Advocate for the Respondent No.5.
Muhammad Aslam Chishti.

Date of hearing: 7th July, 1988.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: