1983 PLP 873 (SCMR)

Date of hearing: 2nd July, 1983. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J..‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 14‑2‑1983, of the Lahore High Court; whereby the petitioner's Intra‑Court Appeal, was dismissed. The petitioner was candidate for admission to the first M. B., B. S. Class of Medical Colleges of Punjab for the session 1979‑1980. She claimed the seat on the basis of a preference‑being the daughter of a registered private medical practitioner, securing 613 marks in the F. Sc. (Pre‑Medical) Examination. The reliance for admission on above‑noted preferential basis was placed on the following rules/directives regarding "doctors' children;‑ "(i) 10 seats for 'the'‑children of the doctors of Medical Colleges and their affiliated hospitals in the Province of Punjab with 10 years service to their credit. (ii) 10 seats for the children of doctors in Punjab Provincial Health Services with 10 years service to their credit. (iii) 7 seats for the children of Registered Medical Practitioners of Punjab with 10 years standing to their credit. (iv) 8 seats for the children of doctors in Punjab Provincial Local Bodies. Social Security Institutions etc. and doctors in the service of Central Government with the domicile of Punjab and doctors serving in the other provinces with domicile of Punjab with 10 years service to their credit." The petitioner's candidature would. according to the learned counsel, be covered by category (iii), 7 seats were reserved for the children of Registered Medical Practitioners of Punjab, with 10 years standing to their credit. The petitioner was a candidate for one of these seats. As there were other candidates with higher marks in this category, therefore, she did not succeed in securing the admission, She accordingly sought relief in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Her writ petition was dismissed on merits on 4‑12‑1982. Not feeling satisfied she filed an intra Court appeal which was dismissed on 14‑2‑1983, mainly, on the ground that in the meanwhile 3 years having passed since the session for which she had sought admission and that the students who might be displaced by her admission at this stage were already in the Third Year M. B., B. S. Class. This circumstance was considered enough for not exercising a discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The merits of her appeal, on account of the aforementioned reasons were not examined. It may be mentioned that the two main grievances raised before the learned Single Judge in the High Court from the petitioner's side were that the rules/directions specifying the number of seats in each category of doctor's children were introduced only in 1979‑1980 session and that too after the date of the submission of the admission form and secondly that in her own category the petitioner could be granted a seat but was denied the same illegally. On both the points the finding of facts are against the petitioners. The so‑called rules continued in operation since at least a year before the session in question and thus the petitioner was aware of it when she sought admission on the basis of preference for doctor's children. It is also not denied that in her own category, namely, as a child of a private medical practitioner, she was rightly refused the admission because her marks were lower than those who were granted the admission. In view of the afore noted factual aspects of the case, learned counsel has in support, of this petition raised another contention, namely, that the further classification amongst the doctor's children (35 seats were reserved in all) was discriminatory in nature and that in any case there was no data with the authorities concerned to fix a specific number of seats in each category of the doctor's children and that such further classification was arbitrarily. In so far as the question of data is concerned, it is only the petitioner's statement otherwise there is nothing brought on this record to show that specifying the number of seat in each class of doctor's children was in any way arbitrary. The point having been urged in the High Court was adequate ly dealt with. In so far as the new point regarding the challenge: to the further classification amongst 35 seats as being discriminatory suffice it to observe that the petitioner having sought the admission on the basis of the same classification cannot be allowed to turn round and challenge the same in constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Moreover, the point no C having been urged in the High Court, we do not find any reason to examine it now particularly when admittedly the student, who might be displaced on account of the success of the petitioner, if any, have already reached the third M. B., B. S. class. Before closing this order, it needs to be mentioned that the learned counsel reliance on Miss Amtul Naseer Sami v. Secretary, Health, Government of Baluchistan and others (1975 S C M R 265), is in the circumstances of this case not of any help to the petitioner. For all these reasons, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. This petition is accordingly dismissed. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.