1979 PLP 623 (CLC)

Abdul Attar Shaikh, Addl. A: G. for Respondents Nos. I and

2. Muhammad Ali Shaikh for Respondent No.

3. Date of hearing : 14th January 1979. FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM J.-The petitioner passed his Intermediate Science Examination in the Medical Group in the years 1975-76 securing 651 marks. On 5-8-1976, he applied for Domicile and Permanent Residence Certificates which were not issued to him until July, 1977. By reason of the delay his application for the admission to the Medical College for the year 1976-77 was not considered. In the succeeding year 1977-78 the petitioner, who was now duly armed with the requisite Certificates, applied for admission and his grievance in the present petition is that the authorities have not even considered his application for admission.

2. Mr. Sattar A. Sheikh, the learned Additional Advocate-General contended that in these circumstances the petitioner will be eligible to apply for admission for the year 1978-79, for which purpose he relies on rule 13 of the prospectus which reads as follows :- "13.-Documents received after the date of interview shall not be consider ed. However, if the documents are issued late by the Government such candidates shall be allowed to apply for selection in 1978-79 course next year; provided that he/she produces evidence that he/she bad applied for the same in time and the delay had occurred at the Government end." The aforesaid rule occurs in the prospectus for the year 1977-78, and applies to applicants seeking admission in the year 1977-78, who have not been granted admission for want of requisite certificates, and they have been granted liberty to apply in the following year. The relevant rule according to us is rule 2 (iii) which reads as follows :- (2) (iii) Those who have passed Intermediate Science (Pre-Medical Group/ B. Sc. Examination earlier at least in Second Division but their applications were not considered previously due to the fact that their P. R. C., or Domicile Certificates were not issued in time in spite of the fact that they had applied for the said documents. This claim shall have to be supported by proper documentary evidence."

3. It is clear to us that under the aforesaid rule the petitioner became eligible for admission in the year 1977-78 as he had not be.-n considered for admission previously due to the fact that his P. R. C. or his Domicile Certificate were not issued in time in spite of the fact that he had applied for the said documents,

4. Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3, who is likely to be displaced in the event petitioner succeeds in obtaining the admission, argued that his client was entitled to be preferred for admission as against the petitioner inasmuch as this respondent had passed his Intermediate Science Examination in the year 1976. We do not find in the Prospectus any support for the contention for the three categories of students who are eligible to apply for admission under rule 2 of the prospectus do not compete with each other or that one category will have preference over the other.

5. The result, therefore, is that the petitioner had the requisite eligibility to apply for admission to the Medical College for the year 1977-78 and therefore his application ought to have been considered on merits. The respondents are, therefore, directed to consider the petitioner's application on merits, as soon as possible, preferably within two weeks hereof and if the petitioner is on merits entitled to admission he will be granted admission for the year 1977-78.

6. As regards respondent No. 3 Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh made two more submissions, firstly that as a result of cancellation of P. R. C's. of 2 or 3 other students in the college, the respondent will be upgraded in the merit list and therefore there will be no occasion for the college authorities to displace respondent No.

3. To this the short answer is that we are in the present petition concerned with the respondent's displacement, by the admission of the petitioner but if for some other independent reason, the respondent is permitted to continue his studies, such benefit will not be denied to him. It was next argued that the respondent No. 3 ha already completed one year of study and it will be therefore, proper that h a may not be displaced by the admission of the petitioner. We can a best express a hope that the authorities will be under the circumstances, justified m exploring the possibility of creating an additional seat with a view, to avoid hardship to the respondent.

7. This petition is disposed of as aforesaid with no order as to costs. Petition accepted.