P L D 1966 (W (PLP)

FARUQUI, J.‑

This is a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution by Miss Masuda Faruqui, daughter of Dr. M. Deen Faruqui who had applied for admission in the Dow Medical College, Karachi and head failed to get it.

2. The petitioner's case was based upon a letter of the Government of West Pakistan dated 15‑8‑64 of which the relevant para has been produced in paragraph 2 of this petition. This may be conveniently reproduced:‑-- "

2. Five seats shall be reserved in each Medical College for the admission of Doctors' children as follows: (a) Three seats shall be filled from children of all Registered Medical Practitioners in order of merit. (b) The remaining two seats shall be filled by the children of Doctors in the service of the Government of West Pakistan or those who have been retired from such service, provided that one of these seats shall be filled by the children of the Medical Staff of the Medical Institutions and their affiliated hospitals." It is later stated that in each category the selection will be made strictly in accordance with the merit of the candidate.

3. The petitioner appeared in the F. Sc. Examination and obtained 533 marks. She was claiming one of the three reserved seats in the category fixed by para. 2 (a) of the letter referred to above. Her grievance was that in this category were also included the children of doctors who were in the service of the Government or belonged to the medical staff of some medical institutions or their affiliated hospitals. It was pointed out that if the category (a) had been reserved for the children of private medical practitioner who were registered then in that category her position being third in order of merit she would be entitled to admission.

4. In the petition is also quoted the earlier letter‑ in this respect dated 28‑9‑63 which was for the previous academic session of 1963‑

64. This may also be reproduced: "(i) Three seates for children of all registered Medical Practitioners (including the children of Doctors in service of Central and Provincial whether serving or retired. (ii) One seat will be for the children of Doctors in service of Central or Provincial Government whether serving or retired and selection will be made by Government, taking into consideration the service of the parents. (iii) One seat will be reserved for the children of Medical Staff of the Teaching Institutions provided the total service is not less than ten years. In the staff those Doctors will be considered who have been on the Medical College or its affiliated hospitals, subject to the conditions that such candidates should be allotted seats in Medical College which cater to the need of the area comparing their places of Region, i.e. whether their parents are permanently settled in West Pakistan (within the area tagged to Dow Medical College, Karachi)."

5. It is not disputed that if the respondents 2 and 3 had not been accommodated in the first category as devised by the letter of 15‑8‑64 the petitioner would have been eligible for admission in the first category. The contention of Mirza Akhtar Husain, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, was that this category for the academic session 1964‑65 as contained in clause (a) covered only the children of such registered medical practitioners who were not in the service of the Government or who were not on the staff of any medical institution. The argument proceeded that the omission of the portion appearing in bracket in the earlier letter pointed to the interpretation which was sought by the learned counsel. It was urged that if this category in clause (a) was to be opened to the children of all medical practitioners including those in Government service, etc. then there was no reason why the first category of the year 1963‑64 should have been amended.

6. We have carefully considered the argument of the learned counsel and though the interpretation sought by him is a tempting one which a parent of a child, who happens to . be a private medical practitioner, would find convenient, we regret we are not in a position to accede to it. Mr. Haleem, the learned Additional Advocate‑General, has taken us through the legislative provisions in this regard. It may be mentioned that the Pakistan Medical Council Act, XXVII of 1933 was replaced by the Medical Council Ordinance, XXXII of 1962. In the old Act the term "registered medical practitioner" was not defined. However, in the Ordinance which now holds the field this term has been defined in clause (l) of section 2 thus: "Registered medical practitioner means a medical practitioner registered or provisionally registered under this Ordinance." The "Register" has been defined under clause (j) to mean the Register of medical practitioners maintained under section 23, or the Register of dentists maintained under section

26. Let us then go to section

23. It provides that the Council shall maintain a Register of medical practitioners possessing qualifications which are recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of this Ordinance, and may by a Regulation direct the necessary particulars to be entered in the Register. The next relevant provision is contained in section 29 which lay: down that no one other than a registered medical practitioners shall be competent to hold any medical appointment anywhere. An examination of these provisions leads clearly to the conclusion that the term "registered medical practitioner" will cover ail doctors whether they are in Government service or in the service of some institution or are in private practice. Coming then to the relevant instructions contained in the letter of 15‑8‑64 we notice that clause (a) is couched in such a way which does not permit a narrow reading of the term "registere6 medical. practitioner" so as to mean private medical practitioners only. It is true, in the instruction for the year 1963‑64 there was an explanation in the bracket in the first clause which said including the children of doctors in service of Central or Provincial Government whether 'serving or retired. From this, however, it does not follow that when these words did not appear in the instructions, with which we are concerned, an inference necessarily follows that the children of such registered medical practitioners were intended to be excluded. As to why this amendment was made is best known to the author, but it is possible to say that in this case having used the word "all" and having prefaced it to the word "registered medical practitioner" it was mere surplusage to add the bracket as it appeared in the earlier letter which related to the previous year. This inference is supported by the fact that the Ordinance defined the term "registered medical practitioner" and the effect of the provisions contained in the Ordinance was that every such practitioner was a registered medical practitioner within the meaning of the term in the Ordinance. Having, therefore, used this term in its technical sense as defined in the Act it was not necessary to say including children, etc., etc. It may also be that in the earlier instructions there was no condition that the filling of seats would be in order of merit. This has been expressly provided in clause (2) (a) of the present instructions. There is another reason which leads us to the conclusion which we have reached. If the object of the new instructions was to exclude the children of such registered medical practitioners who were in Government service or in some institution from category (a) then having regard to the earlier instructions it would have been necessary to say "excluding children of doctors in the service of Government or belonging to some medical institution". Such an expression would be necessary having regard to the definition of the term "registered medical practitioner" and the provisions of sections 23 and 29 of the Ordinance.

7. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that clauses (a) and (b) dealt with two different categories of candidates and they are mutually exclusive in the sense that if a candidate belonged to the category (b) he could not seek the reservation of category (a). Such an interpretation would certainly have been possible if the term "registered medical practitioner" did not apply to all qualified doctors under the Ordinance and if the word "all" had not been used with the said term. It is a reasonable interpretation to give these two clauses that the children of ail registered medical practitioners would first compete in the category (a) but the children of such registered medical B practitioners who were in private practice could not be eligible for category (b). Reading these instructions in the light of the Ordinance we are unable to hold that it was intended that the children of doctors in Government service, etc. were excluded from competing on merit in the category (a). We are, therefore, of the opinion that this petition must fail. We would, however, like to observe that the interpretation which the petitioner sought from the two memoranda was such which could not be said to have been unreasonable, if they were not read in the light of the provisions of the Ordinance. We are, therefore, in sympathy with the petitioner but we are not able to give her relief in the petition. We have no doubt that her case will be considered in the next admissions which will be held in a short time. We, therefore, dismiss this petition but having regard to the nature of the case we make no order as to costs. K.B.A. Petition dismissed.