CLC 1998

1998 PLP 1625 (CLC)

Miss AISHA RAHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary, Ministry of Health and another‑‑‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
Constitutional Petition No.D‑1569 and Civil Miscellaneous No. 4192 of 1997 decided on 17th December, 1997.
Honorable Judges
Wajihuddin Ahmed, C.J. and Raja Qureshi, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1998 PLP 1625 (CLC)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members Wajihuddin Ahmed, C.J. and Raja Qureshi, J
Parties Miss AISHA RAHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary, Ministry of Health and another‑‑‑Respondents
Primary Law Educational institution‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1625 (CLC)?

This judgment primarily cites: Educational institution‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1625 (CLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Wajihuddin Ahmed, C.J. and Raja Qureshi, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1625 (CLC) (Miss AISHA RAHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary, Ministry of Health and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Educational institution‑‑‑

Representation

  • Nizam Ali Khan and Amir Malik for Petitioners.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑ Prospectus for Medical Colleges of Sindh, 1996‑97, Rr.2 & 3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Migration of medical student from one college to another, ordered by Government by relaxing relevant rules‑‑‑Petitioner complained that although she was allowed migration to specified medical college in relaxation of rules as a special case, and even though she was attending classes in that college, yet Principal of that college was not entering her name in relevant register and other record of students admitted to that college‑‑‑Petitioner being doctor's child in category of "children of medical doctors domiciled in the Province" was occupant of reserved seat, therefore, could not take benefit of R.2 of the Prospectus which allowed migration on specified reasons, wherein persons admitted on reserved seats were not included‑‑‑Government in accordance with R.3 of the Prospectus, although had the power to relax conditions, yet such course could be adopted in "special case"‑‑‑No comments having been filed by the Government, Court had to draw conclusion which could not be favourable to petitioner, all the more so when petitioner herself had not come up with any justifiable reasons‑‑‑While dismissing petitioner's Constitutional petition High Court directed Secretary Health to submit explanation in writing within 15 days as to what were the circumstances which compelled him far passing order of migration‑‑‑At petitioner's request that she might not be able to go back and continue her studies in her original medical college from where she had purportedly migrated, Secretary Health was directed to undo the wrong which had been done and to send petitioner back to her parent institution within specified time. Muhammad Sarwar Khan, Addl. A.‑G. (Sindh).

Judgment & Decree

(i) Those who are admitted against reserved seats. (ii) Those who are admitted on the basis of merit‑cum‑choice in the colleges not tagged to their district of domicile. (iii) Those who are admitted against reciprocal seats in colleges outside the Province of their domicile, including those admitted in F.J.M.C., Lahore. (iv) Those who are admitted on nomination by Chief Minister in previous sessions. (v) Those who have not yet passed the First Professional M.B B.S examination.

2. Those students who do not fall in the above categories shall be allowed migration only: (i) On mutual exchange basis between students of same class. (ii) If the Principal of the recipient college agrees to accept him and issues a no‑objection certificate to this effect. (iii) Only once during the entire period of medical education of a student,

3. The Government may, however, relax the above conditions in some special cases." It is an admitted position that the petitioner being a doctor's child in the category, "children of medical doctors domiciled in the Province" was the occupant of a reserved seat and, therefore, could not take benefit of rule 2 above. It is also an admitted position that the Principal of Dow Medical College, where the petitioner was transferred under the orders of the Secretary Health, had never agreed to accept the petitioner, let alone issuing a no‑objection certificate to such effect. At this stage, it is argued that under the quoted Rule 3, the Government has the power to relax the conditions in the two preceding rules but that, let it be noted, can be done only in a "special case". "Special case" here patently signifies a hardship case or one where just circumstances exist for deviating from the rules. In no attending facts a "special case" would signify the case of a well‑connected person, benefiting solely on account of such connections. Since no comments, in spite of orders, have been filed, we are constrained to draw a conclusion, which cannot be favourable to the petitioner, all the moreso because the petitioner herself also has not come up with any justifiable reason. The petition, therefore, must fail and is dismissed. At the same time, the then incumbent of the Office of Secretary Health would submit an explanation in writing as to what were the circumstances which compelled him for passing the abovesaid order of transfer, such being submitted within 15 days' time. At this stage, Mr. Nizam Ali Khan has pointed out that because the petitioner is already taking classes at the Dow Medical College in virtue of the order here discussed, she would be stranded there and may not be able to go back and continue her studies even in Sindh Medical College from where she has purportedly migrated. Normally, in such cases some people must be exposed to suffer the consequences of their manifestly over‑bearing conduct. However, the petitioner is a female and it is not unlikely that she alone was not responsible for what came to transpire. We would, therefore, direct the Secretary Health to undo the wrong which has been done in this case and to send the petitioner back to her parent institution, such being done within a week's time. Petition disposed of. A.A./M‑310/K Order accordingly