1986 PLP 1777 (MLD)

The facts leading to the filing', of this petition are that the petitioner a0peared in Higher Secondary Certificate Examination Part II (Class XI1) Pre‑Medical group Examination held in June, 1983 by Hyderabad Board under seat No.28059, but his result was illegally and improperly with‑held by the Board on the charge of adopting "unfair means" in the said examination. The petitioner being aggrieved by the illegal and unwarranted action of the Board filed a Constitutional Petition being C.P. No.D‑100 of 1984 which came up for hearing before a Division bench of this Court consisting of Mr. Justice Naimuddin and Mr. Justice K.A. Ghani, JJ. and the same was disposed of in the following terms:‑ "The petitioner shall appear before the disciplinary Action Sub‑Committee tomorrow the 31‑1‑1984 at 10 a.m. In case any adverse order is passed against the petitioner and if the same is not according to law, it will be open to petitioner to file fresh petition." The petitioner simultaneously had applied for admission to first M.B.B.S. for the year 1983‑84 and he was accorded registration No.424, dated 31‑1‑1984. The petitioner had also applied for admission in B.D.S. class first year for 1983 84 and was issued admission form registration No‑959, dated 31‑1‑1984, in the hope that his result would be declared and he expected good percentage of marks which would entitle him to admission. The petitioner in view of the mala fide decision was precluded from seeking admission as his result was cancelled. The petitioner, in compliance with the aforesaid direction appeared before the Disciplinary Action Sub‑Committee on 3‑1‑1984. He was told that the order would be communicated to him by post. The petitioner received a letter-dated 31‑1‑1984 whereby he was declared guilty of using "unfair means" and debarred for a period of three academic years, that is, 1981‑82, 1982‑83 and 1983‑

84. The petitioner above named being aggrieved by the arbitrary illegal and mala fide action of the Board filed a Constitutional Petition being C .P . No. D‑339 of 1984. On 29‑1‑1985 the above petition was disposed of in terms of the joint statement filed by the counsel of the petitioner and the Board whereby the Board was directed to declare the result d the petitioner in respect of H.S.C Part‑II Examination held in June, 1983, by 30th January, 1985. The Controller of Examination declared him pass in Part‑II examination and marks sheet was also issued to him which reflected that the petitioner had secured 639 marks out of 1100 marks average being 59.10 per cent. It is the case of the petitioner that the last student who was admitted by respondent No.2 i n First Year M . B . B . S. Class in 1983‑84 session had secured 57% marks. As the petitioner was eligible and would have got admission had his result been declared at its proper line. It is the case of the petitioner that he was unlawfully deprived of seeking admission in first year M.B.B.S. on account of unreasonable and illegally delayed declaration of result. The petitioner again submitted admission forms in respondents office for first year M.B.B.S. Class and for first year B.D.S. Class for the session 1984‑85., The respondent No.2 scrutinized and prepared list of successful candidates whose selection was made in order of merit. It is averred that on 19‑2‑1985 the petitioner had submitted a,n application wherein he requested that on the basis of facts and circumstances his case may be considered in accordance with merit list for admission in first year M . B . B . S . 1983‑

84. It is further averred that on 10‑3‑1985 the respondent No.2 prepared a list of successful candidates and displayed the list on the Notice Board which did not carry petitioner's name as the last student taken secured 664 marks out of 1100 marks (being 60.3$) as compared to last year percentage of 57 per cent marks secured by last candidate who was granted admission. The petitioner above named being aggrieved by the refusal of respondent No.2 to admit him in the first year M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1984‑85 filed this petition Mr. Mazharul Jamil in support of the petition has contended that by virtue of para. 2 (iii) of 1983‑84 prospectus that those who have passed Intermediate Science Examination (Pre‑Medical Group)/B.Sc. (Biological Science) Annual/ Supplementary Examination 1982 and could not be considered in last selection due to late issue of Domicile/P.R.C. are entitled to be admitted in the first year M.B.B.S. or Ist year B. D. S. On the other hand Mr. Ibrahim Memon the learned Additional Advocate-‑General has submitted that the Government is empowered to frame policy/rules for each year for admission. The petitioner is not entitled to benefit of para. or Rule 2 (iii) of the prospectus as he did not produce the Intermediate Marks sheet within the prescribed time. It has been argued by Mr. Mazharul Jamil that the petitioner appeared for. Intermediate Science Examination held in June, 1983. Allegations were made against him for using "unfair means", the Board gave a decision against him. He filed Constitutional Petition No.D‑110/84 and as per direction of this Court he appeared before the Disciplinary Action Sub‑Committee on. 3‑1‑1984. He was told that the order of the said Committee would be communicated to him by post. The petitioner received the letter and he was found guilty of using "unfair means" and debarred for a period of three academic years. The petitioner above named being aggrieved filed Constitutional Petition No.D‑339/84 which came up for hearing on 29‑1‑1985 which was disposed of in teams of joint statement filed by the counsel for the petitioner and the, Board and whereby the Board was directed to declare the result of petitioner by 30th January, 1985. The admission to the Medical College for the year 1983‑84, had taken place much before the declaration of the results, the applications which were made by him for admission to First Year M.B. B.S. and First Year B.D.S. were not considered by the respondent No.2 for non‑production of Intermediate Marks sheet within time as well as Rule.

12. It has been urged that by virtue of rule 2 (iii) of the prospectus of M . B . B . S . and B.D.S he became entitled to admission for the academic year 1984‑

85. His contention is that by virtue of rule 12 if a candidate was unable to produce the necessary documents for the purpose of maintaining an application for admission for the reason that such documents could not be issued due to delay at the Government level although the candidate was eligible for such a certificate at that time, the petitioner could apply in the next academic year. The learned counsel contended that the petitioner was entitled to apply for the year 1984‑85 but for the next year a fresh prospectus was issued and the benefit which was conferred by rule 12 of 1983‑84 was withdrawn. It is an admitted position that the Government is empowered to frame each year rules for admission to First Year M . B . B . S . and B .D . S . for Medical College in Sind. From the perusal of the criteria prescribed in the prospectus it will spear that the criteria prescribed in Rule 2 (iii) and Rule 12 of prospectus for 1983‑84 is quite different then for the academic year 1984‑

85. Rule 7 provides that every application for admission shall be accompanied by (a) matriculation certificate, (b) matriculate marks sheet, (c) Intermediate Science (Pre‑medical Group) Marks Sheet /Equivalent of Marks by University, (d) B.Sc. Examination Marks Sheet, (e) N.C.C. Certificate, (f) Permanent Residence Certificate, (g) Domicile Certificate, (h) Affidavit by candidate and (i) Candidates National Identity Card. Rule 12 provides that all relevant documents in original must be submitted latest by the last date of interview by the candidates. In case there is any deficiency in documents the candidate shall complete it within 15 days of the last date of the interview, and thereafter no document shall be entertained. Where any document is issued after 15 days of the‑ last date of interview the candidate concerned shall be allowed to apply for admission in 1984‑85 course. But such candidate will have to prove by documentary evidence that he/she had applied for the document in question in time that he was eligible for it but the same was not issued by the concerned authority before the last date of the interview. The candidate who fails to appear for the interview shall not be considered for admission unless allowed by the Chairman of the concerned Selection Board on specific and valid grounds, upto the last date of interview. In case the candidate is sick, his/her father or guardian shall produce the required document in original at the time of interview for consideration. by the Selection Board. Petitioner's right for admission in the college, in our opinion, was to be decided on the basis of the prospectus for the year 1984‑85 and not by the prospectus for the year 1983‑

84. The petitioner's right to admission was to be governed by the policy prescribed by the A prospectus for the year 1984‑85 as it existed for 1984‑

85. We are of the opinion that the construction on the rules suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner by itself is not sufficient for warranting this Court to interfere with the decision of the respondents. In the result, there is no force in the Constitution Petition and the same was dismissed by a short order passed by us on 12‑3‑1986 and the above are the reasons for the same but in the circumstances of this case the parties shall bear their own costs. H.B.T. Petition dismissed.