Edwardes College Peshawar Reckons Court Decision as Incorrect
Court Restrains Peshawar University’s VC from Acting against Teacher
Peshawar High Court Bans Judges from Issuing Suo Motu Notices without Permission
Nigel Latta, politically incorrect or just plain incorrect?
Victim's penis cut off as trophy: court, Australia
Bachelor Phobia in Peshawar
The Edwardes College Peshawar, one of the most reputed colleges in the NWFP province, met an unexpected setback as a civil court decided against the college administration in the case of a student’s admission controversy. According to the college’s principal Dr. David L. Gosling, the court’s decision is incorrect and may affect other educational institutions in the province.
As detailed on the college’s News and Events page, an applicant named Mohammad Jamdad Khan failed to update himself on the college’s merit lists for admission and hence did not appear for an interview. Consequently, Jamdad Khan was dropped and another student, from the waiting list, with fewer marks than the said candidate, was admitted to the college. The matter went to a civil court in Peshawar, which decided against the college on the grounds that the college should have provided a greater opportunity for the candidate to attend the interview.
Dr. David L. Gosling, principal of the college, has regarded the court’s decision as incorrect, arguing that the college showed no lapse in following the standard procedure for admissions that is followed in other educational institutions including the University of Peshawar. It was the candidate’s responsibility to familiarize himself with the college’s schedule as notified on the college’s notice board. Therefore, Dr. Gosling has declared the court’s decision as incorrect.
The most significant piece of information, added to the case detail on the college’s page, reveals that the candidate in question is apparently some family member of the assistant registrar of the Peshawar High Court. The implication is obvious: the court’s decision is biased and tainted with favoritism. Dr. Gosling, in his message, expressed his reservations over the court’s decision that is attempting to coerce a well-reputed educational institute, which has not violated any standard norm or rule. He thinks that the court’s incorrect decision will affect other educational institutes in the province and attract international attention.
As of now, the court has lifted the stay order but the main claim of the candidate remains and the case is still subjudice.
