1999CLC388 (PLP)

The facts leading to the filing of the present Constitutional petition by the petitioner are that the petitioner passed his H.S.C. Part 11 Examination 1997 and secured 842 marks including NCC marks. He applied for admission in respondent No. 2 college in the First year M. B.,B.S. Session 1997‑98 against the seats reserved for District Shikarpur. The respondent No.5 too applied for admission in the M.B.,B.S. Classes 1996‑97 Session in the same college and she was given admission. Later, on some report about the tampering of result of the respondent No.5, the respondent No.2 made enquiries from respondent No.3 Board and was informed that she had secured 741 marks. Accordingly, her admission was cancelled by order, dated 11‑3‑1998 on the ground of tampering of record. The said respondent protested and on re-verification, the Board found that the respondent No.5 had secured 845 marks excluding 20 marks for NCC and, accordingly a corrigendum, dated 18‑3‑1987 was issued. In consequence of the development, the petitioner was issued a show‑cause notice dated 14‑4‑1998 requiring him to show‑cause why his admission should not be cancelled in view of the higher marks obtained by respondent No.5. A reply was submitted by the petitioner to the show‑cause notice and, in the meanwhile the present petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the action contemplated against him. During the pendency of this petition, by office order, dated 27‑4‑1998, the admission of the petitioner was cancelled and that of respondent No.5 was restored. Iii order to find out correct factual position of the case, we called for the Registers and other relevant documents from the respondent No.3. These have been produced and it appears that in one of the Registers, the number obtained by the petitioner in Pakistan Studies has been tampered with and 47 seems to have been made 40 by changing the figure 7 to zero. There also appears certain other over-writings and the total of the marks obtained has been changed from 845 to

838. In the other Register also the marks obtained in Pakistan Studies has been tampered with so also the total marks. Marks obtained in some other subjects too show signs of tampering. It would thus, appear that the tampering was done with a view to reduce the marks obtained by the respondent No.5 and such can hardly be attributed to the respondent No.5. Even otherwise, the number of marks affected by such tampering it only seven and even if that is not taken into account, the respondent No.5 would still appear to have obtained 838 marks excluding the 20 NCC marks. The total marks thus, obtained by her would be 858 marks which is much more than 842 obtained by the petitioner, such being the case, the petitioner cannot be given preference over respondent No.5 who had obtained higher marks. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that a vested right had been created in favour of the petitioner by reason of his having been given admission in place of respondent No.5 and fees and other dues having been collected from him. In this regard, he placed reliance on the case of Chairman, Selection Committee/Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore and 2 others v. Wasif Zamir Ahmad and another, 1997 SCMR

15. The facts of that case appear to be that the respondent there was given admission in First Year M.B.,B.S. and had paid his fee and other dues and was called upon to join his First Year M.B.,B.S. Classes. Later, it was found that respondent No.2 had secured higher marks and had been accommodated against the above seat in place of respondent No.1, whereupon, respondent No.1 challenged the cancellation of his admission in a Constitutional petition before the Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahore High Court which succeeded on the ground that the respondent No.1 had a vested right to continue studies iii the Medical College. In appeal, the Honourable Supreme Court upheld the findings of tire Lahore High Court on the ground that the respondent No.1 was presumably given admission on merits by the competent College Authorities after considering his case and that the said respondent was likely to complete the second year course of M.B.,B.S. This being the position, it was observed, by lapse of time, the respondent had obtained a valid right to continue his studies". However, in the present case, the petitioner was given admission only after the admission of respondent No.5 was cancelled on a wrong report which seems to have been manipulated and hardly within a month of such admission, the correct position came to light, whereupon, show‑cause notice was issued to the petitioner for cancellation of his admission and‑ultimately has admission was cancelled. As such, this case is distinguishable from the aforesaid Supreme Court case. Such mistakes are common place in admissions in Medical Colleges in this Province and if persons who are given admission by mistake are allowed to continue in Colleges that will not only encourage malpractice of tampering with the records, as done in this case, but would create difficulties for the Medical Colleges to accommodate students beyond the available seats. In the circumstances of this case, in our view, no fault can be found with the action of the respondent No.2 whereby the admission of the respondent No.5 was restored and that of the petitioner cancelled. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. In view of the above, both the miscellaneous applications have become infructuous and are dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./S‑184/K Petition dismissed