Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as Const. P. 4589/2026 (SHC). In this matter between Const. P. 4589/2026 (D.B.) Zahid Hussain (Shar) and SZABUL & others Sindh High Court, Karachi, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.

Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: CITATION: PARTIES: ORDER DATE: BENCH: A.F.R: ------------------------------------------------------------ THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH KARACHI

Present: Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry

C.P. No. D – 4589 of 2026 [Zahid Hussain Shar versus SZABUL and others]

Petitioner : Zahid Hussain Shar son Allah Warayo, Petitioner in person.

Date of hearing : 22-07-2026

Date of decision : 22-07-2026

O R D E R Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry J. – 1] Urgency granted. 3] Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions. 2, 4 & 5] Grievance of the Petitioner is that he has been denied admission to the Ph.D (Law) Program offered by Respondent No.1 [University]. He alleges that the evaluation process for admission violated the admission criteria announced by the University itself, and therefore , he seeks a writ to investigate the impartiality of the evaluation process.

2. The Petitioner and other candidates for the Ph.D (Law) Program having passed the Higher Aptitude Test (HAT) held by the Higher Education Commission and/or the University’s Entry Test, were evaluated by a Departmental Research Committee of the University on a ‘Statement of Purpose (SOP)’ submitted by each candidate and then by an interview. On his SOP, the Petitioner obtained 31.5 marks (out of 70). On interview, he was given 10.66 marks. Apparently, these marks were not enough. It is not disputed that the 25 candidates who have been admitted to the Ph.D (Law) program obtained more marks than the Petitioner both on their SOP and interview.

3. The case of the Petitioner seems to be that as per the admission criteria published by the University , marks obtained on SOP and interview were to be given only 20% weightage, whereas 80% weightage was to be given to marks obtained in the HAT or Entry Test;

C.P. No. D – 4589 of 2026 but the list of successful candidates does not reflect marks obtained in the HAT or Entry Test. For this reason, the Petitioner questions the admission of successful candidates and his rejection.

4. We have gone through the University’s admission criteria relied upon by the Petitioner . Part B thereof categorically states that admission to the Ph.D (Law) Program “will be granted on the basis of test/interview by the D epartmental Research Committee” , and that “qualifying the admission test is no guarantee to admission”. The weightage formula referred to by the Petitioner appears in Part C of the admission criteria which is for “Provisional Admission”, and which i s subject to availability of seats and supervisors. Even then, that formula does not give any weightage to marks obtained in the HAT or Entry Test as contended by the Petitioner, rather gives weightage to “marks obtained in the last basic degree”. The Petitioner does not demonstrate that if the weightage formula were to be applied, he would come out ahead of any of the successful candidates.

5. There is nothing to suggest that the Petitioner was discriminated during the evaluation process or that the Departmental Research Committee harbored any ill will against him to deny admission . As observed by the Supreme Court in Waheed Gul Khan v. Province of Sindh (2024 SCMR 1701) , unless malafides or bias is demonstrated, the High Court should not ordinarily exercise writ jurisdiction to interfere in a selection by subjective evaluation . Resultantly, the petition is dismissed in limine.

JUDGE

JUDGE SHABAN*

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Sindh High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant