ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

C.   P.   No.D-2718     of  2011

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

22.12.2011.

1. For Katcha Peshi.

2. For Hearing of M. A. No.7268/2011.

Mr. Zahid Hussain Mallah, advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Azizul Haque Solangi, Asst. A. G.,

Mr. Ghulam Ali A. Samtio, advocate, alongwith Dr. Sikandar Ali, Director, Admissions, Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical University, Larkana.

                             --------------------------

                   Dr. Sikandar Ali, Director, Admissions, Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical University, Larkana is present alongwith Mr.Ghulam Ali A. Samtio.  In the marks-sheet submitted by the petitioner, marks in respect of Biology-I Practical are stated to be 15; in the merit list prepared by the admissions office marks for the same paper are stated to be 12.  Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner should have been considered in accordance with the merit, which he would attend if 15 marks and not 12 marks had been added for the paper in question.  Dr. Sikandar Ali, Director, Admissions admits that the marks certificate submitted by the petitioner is correct and he indeed obtained 15 marks in Biology-I Practical.  He also admits that due to clerical oversight in the merit list his marks were entered as 12.  He, however, states that merit list was prepared and pasted on the Notice Board and the petitioner did not file any objections to it.  He submitted that thereafter the final list was also pasted and the petitioner did not lodge any objections and, therefore, it is too late in the day for the petitioner to do so.

                   We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel and have also gone through the record.

                   It is admitted that marks actually obtained by the petitioner in the paper in question were 15 and it is also admitted that marks entered in the merit list were 12.  This is a fault essentially and solely on part of the admissions office of the University.  If the petitioner did not object to the merit list that does not mean that admissions office is absolved of its responsibility of preparing correct merit list.   Consequently, this Constitutional Petition is allowed and the University is directed to re-prepare the merit list in respect of the petitioner by correcting marks for Biology-I Practical from 12 to 15 and thereafter if on such reassessed merit the petitioner is entitled to admission, the same should be allowed to him.  This exercise be completed within 7 days and the petitioner be informed accordingly.

                                                                                                JUDGE

                                                                   JUDGE