2019 PLP 916 (MLD)

ALI BAIG, J.

The petitioner namely Zaigum Abbas son of Musa Khan has filed the instant writ petition under Article 71(2) of Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self Governance) Order, 2009 read with Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan claiming that the petitioner has passed his FSC Pre-Medical examination and has obtained 959 marks out of 1100 marks and also passed Entry Test 2018 from University of Health Sciences Lahore by obtaining 719 Marks out of 1100 marks. The petitioner is disabled person and accordingly he deserves for nomination in any Medical College against reserved quota of disabled) persons but the respondents Nos.1 to 4 have declined/are reluctant to nominate the petitioner against the reserved seats of MBBS meant for disable persons/students.

2. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent No.5 namely Hassan Habib had also filed a writ petition under Article 71(2) of Gilgit Baltistan (Empowerment and Self Governance) Order, 2009 read with Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. On 12-10-2017 claiming that the petitioner is entitled for admission in Medical College in MBBS against reserved quota of disable persons which was partially allowed by this court vide order dated 05-12-2017 with the direction to the answering respondents to consider the case of nomination of the above named respondent No.5 in the next academic year on disable quota Accordingly the respondent No.5 has also filed an application for implementation of order of this court dated 05-12-2017 which is also subjudice before this court. We intend to dispose of this writ petition bearing No.215/18 filed by the present petitioner and implementation petition No. C. Misc. 208/2017 filed by the respondent No.5 namely Hassan Habib through this single judgment as common question of law and facts are involved in both these writ petitions.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the present petitioner is disable person and has obtained 959 marks out of total 1100 marks in his FSC examination and has also obtained 719 marks in Entry Test, hence the petitioner is entitled to be nominated for admission in MBBS against reserved quota of disable persons. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are intending to nominate respondent No. 5 for admission in MBBS against reserved quota of disable persons, whereas the respondent No. 5 has obtained less marks from the petitioner in his FSC examination and Entry Test, therefore, he is not entitled for nomination in MBBS against reserved seat/ quota of disable persons.

4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, Assistant Advocate General and Mr. Muzafar Ali Legal Advisor Education Department controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that since this court vide its order dated 05-12-2017 had partially accepted writ petition of present respondent No.5 and had directed the respondents Nos.2 to 4 to consider the case of nomination of present respondent No.5 in next academic year against reserved quota of disable persons and accordingly one seat of MMES has been reserved for disable person/respondent No.5 and remaining reserved seats of Gilgit Baltistan have already been filled in by nominating the suitable candidates on merits.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance and gone through the record.

6. From perusal of record it transpires that the present respondent No.5 had filed a writ petition in this court claiming that he is a disable person and in this connection he has been issued disability certificate by Dr. Muhammad Asif Consultant Eye specialist DHQ Hospital Gilgit as his right eye is blind and has lost vision in right eye. Another disability certificate has also been issued to respondent No.5 by Chairman Assessment Board NCRDP/Medical Superintendent DHQ Hospital Gilgit.

7. Under the Disabled person (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance 1981, disabled person means a person who on account of injury, disease or congenital deformity, is handicapped for undertaking any gainful profession or employment in order to earn his livelihood and includes a person who is blind, deaf, physically handicapped or mentally retarted.

8. From perusal of above mentioned definition of disable person it appears that the respondent No.5 is disable in the parameter of above said definition as his eye is blind. Moreover, this court vide order dated 05-12-2017 had partially allowed the writ petition of present respondent No.5 and has directed the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to consider the case of the nomination of the present respondent No.5 in the next academic year i.e. this year on disable quota. In compliance with the order of this court vide order dated 05-12-2017 the respondents Nos.1 to 4 have allocated /reserved one seat of MBBS to the respondent No.5 out of total 43 reserved seats of MBBS of Gilgit-Baltistan, hence the present respondent No.5 is entitled to be nominated against one seat of MBBS reserved for the disable persons. The present petitioner namely Zaigum Abbas cannot be considered against the one seat of MBBS meant for disable persons as this court has already passed judgment/order infavour of respondent No.5 on 05-12-2017. However, the present respondents Nos.1 to 4 will consider the case of nomination of the present petitioner namely Zaigum Abbas on merit in the next academic year on disable quota in accordance with their nomination policy/rules to be framed by the respondents Nos.1 to 4 for nomination of disable persons in professional Colleges. The answering respondents informed the court, that rules for allocation of quota to the disable persons, are under process and will be finalized in near future. We hope that the answering respondents will ensure that the rights of disable persons are fully protected in the rules being framed.

9. For what has been discussed above, the writ petition filed by Zaigum Abbas being devoid of merit is dismissed and implementation petition filed by the petitioner/respondent No.5 namely Hassan Habib is allowed and respondent Nos.1 to 4 are directed to nominate respondent No.5 namely Hassan Habib against the reserved seat of MBBS meant for disable persons for the academic year 2018. Certified true copy of this judgment be placed on file on Implementation Petition No.291 filed by respondent No.5 namely Hassan Habib. Both the aforementioned petitions are disposed of in the above terms. File. ZC/231/GB Order accordingly.