1999 PLP 1586 (YLR)

As per contents of this list petitioner and one Abdul Ghaffar son of Dr. Ali Gauhar were considered for admission against the seat of Doctor's children category‑C and their number in pre‑entry test were shown to be 51.40 and 49.60 respectively. Admittedly in this list name of Sheharyar Hanif Khan has not been written. This factual position had not been denied by learned counsel appearing for respondents. If we were to believe this document alone then there was no difficulty for us to hold that respondent Sheharyar Hanif Khan had not applied for admission against the Doctors' seat. But to further satisfy ourselves we have also minutely examined application form filed by respondent No.4 for admission. Office of B.M.C. had allocated section No.617 to his form. Perusal of column meant for admission against special category/groups as per ara.34‑A of the prospectus indicates that no choice both first and second were exercised by him. But at the same time in the next column under heading "instructions for the candidates/mention clearly the reserve seat you are going to apply", it is written "Doctors son category‑C self‑finance". Surprisingly there is yet another form under same serial number available on record original of which was also shown to us during arguments. His form in column meant for mentioning special category or groups he exercised first choice for district category‑C and second choice self‑finance. Similarly under the heading instructions for the candidates in the column "mention clearly the reserve seat you are going to apply", it is written "District Doctors son category‑C/self finance". Thus, from perusal of both the forms including original one which was shown to us in the Court we are inclined to hold that although there is some doubt whether respondent No.4 initially applied for admission against the reserve seat of the children of Doctors of Balochistan under Category‑C para. 12 of the prospectus, but we would extend its benefit to him because his admission is under challenge. Thus, it is concluded that respondent No.4 did apply firstly for reserve seat of the children of Doctors falling under category‑C of para. 12 of the prospectus and secondly for self finance. As far as mentioning his name in the tentative list for the children of doctors under Category‑C referred to hereinabove is concerned it is also ignored presuming perhaps that there is a clerical lapse. Now the next most important and crucial question involved in the instant case is that who amongst both of them, i.e., petitioner Miss Gul Mahina and respondent Sheharyar Hanif Khan are entitled for admission against category‑C para. 12 for the seat reserved for the children of doctors of Balochistan. It may be noted that admittedly in pre‑entry test respondent No.4 secured higher marks than the petitioner, therefore, considering him to be on the top of the merit list he was admitted against the category of the doctors. But as we have noted hereinabove claim of petitioner is that case of respondent No.4 is not covered for the reserve seat of children of doctors falling under Category‑C of para. 12 of the prospectus. It would be appropriate to re‑produce hereinbelow para. 12 of the prospectus for the sake of convenience in extenso:‑‑ PARA.

12. The selection of candidates against the three seats reserved for the children of doctors of Balochistan shall be made from amongst the eligible children of doctors who are local/domicile of Balochistan or possess valid permanent residence certificate of Balochistan, and their selection will be effected according to the following three categories: Category‑A.‑‑‑ Teaching Staff of Bolan Medical College: Children of teachers/doctors, non doctors in Bolan Medical College Quetta with at least ten years service and the children of retired and deceased teachers of Bolan Medical College, are eligible for the seat provided that the deceased teacher had at least ten years service at this credit‑One Seat. Category‑B.‑‑ Children of doctors serving the provincial Health Department with at least ten years service other than those mentioned in Category "A" above. The children of retired and deceased doctors shall also be eligible for the seat provided that the deceased doctor had at least ten years service at his credit‑One Seat. Category‑C.‑‑ The children of only those doctors who are full time Medical Practitioners in Balochistan and are local/domicile and permanent resident of Balochistan and are not employees in Provincial Government and the children of deceased doctors falling in this category would also be eligible for the seat, provided that the deceased family is permanently residing in Balochistan, and they should have served the people of Balochistan, and they should have served the people of Balochi private practitioner for at years‑One Seat. Explanation.‑‑ The doctors should be one registered with the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council and the candidate shall have to produce the certificate of registration valid/up to date of his/her father/mother, as the case may be from the Council on the date of application. It is also to be observed that as per break up of medical seats of B.M.C. for the session 1997‑98, three seats have been reserved for the children of doctors of Balochistan. These three seas have been allocated vide Category‑A, B and C of para.12 re‑produced hereinabove. On perusal of para. 4(1) read with operative part of para. 12 suggest to observe that much emphasis has been laid on the children of doctors of Balochistan, therefore, keeping in view the children of doctors of Balochistan if we had to interpret all the three categories separately we would not feel any difficulty that under Category‑A the children of teacher doctors of B.M.C. are entitled for one seat out of the three reserve seats subject to the condition laid down therein. In this behalf recently in C.P. No.77 of 1999 (Miss Shaista Jabeen v. The Province of Balochistan and others) and C.P. No.262 of 1999 (Miss Benish Nagi v. Province of Balochistan and others), we have held that the children of teachers of non‑doctors are not entitled for admission against reserve seat falling in Category‑C. Relevant para. from the judgment 'is re‑produced hereinbelow:‑‑ "From the above discussion there is no difficulty to infer that in Category‑A of para. 12 by adding the word "non‑doctors" an artificial contradiction has been created in order to make this para. inconsistent to para. 4 (C) (1) of the Prospectus for the purpose of accommodating the children of those who are non doctors because without any fear of contradiction one can safely contend that the three seats meant for the children of Doctors should be allocated only to those candidates whose parents fall under any of the categories of Doctors defined by para. 12 itself as well as by Categories ' A' , ' B' and ' C' read with explanation and no one else can be held to have a seat being a child of non‑Doctor because if such interpretation is accepted it would mean that the three seats are not reserved only for the children of Doctors but for the children of non Doctors as well provided they are attached in B.M.C. for the purpose of teaching other subjects then the medicines like Islamiat, Pakistan Studies etc., which is also a compulsory subject for the students of 1st Professional M.B.,B.S. Thus, in view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that expression 'non‑Doctor' has been used in Category‑A of para. 12 in contradiction to para. 4 clause (1) and these words being superfluous can be termed to be unreasonable and unjustified, thus, to make provisions of para. 4 (1) and (12) Category‑A ahead with explanation consistent and uniform, these words are liable to be struck down. " As far as the children of doctors who are entitled for admission in Category‑B are concerned, in respect thereof we have also held in the case of "Zubia Bugti v. Government of Balochistan" PLD 1997 Quetta 92, that the children of doctors serving in the Provincial Health Department subject to other conditions mentioned therein, are entitled for admission in B.M.C. Relevant para. therefrom is re‑produced hereinbelow for convenience:‑‑ As learned Advocate‑General had categorically stated at bar that petitioner's father is serving in Provincial Health Services of Balochistan, as a Doctors since 1973, therefore, petitioner being his daughter was eligible against the seat reserved for Doctors' children falling under Category‑B of paragraph 14 of the prospectus. As such, in our opinion, the Selection Committee had passed impugned order, rejecting her candidature without jurisdiction. Thus, Judgment cited by Raja M. Afsar learned counsel for private respondent, in out humble opinion, is of no help to him. It was also contended by learned counsel for private respondent that in view of the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court, reported in 1989 SCMR 407, it is the prerogative of the Selection Committee to satisfy itself, whether the candidate is eligible for admission or not? Therefore, this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot replace such conclusion of selection Committee, with its opinion. As far as the principle discussed in judgment is concerned, there is no cavil with it, but in the matters, where Selection Committee had acted without jurisdiction and passed order, which is perverse, contrary to prospectus, which confers jurisdiction upon it to make selection of candidate and decision arrived at appears to be erroneous, based on illegal interpretation of its various provisions, this Court while exer cising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is competent to interfere in such orders. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, impugned order passed by Selection Committee is held to have been passed without jurisdiction and lawful authority and it is declared that petitioner is eligible for admission in First Year M.B.,B.S. Class of Bolan Medical College, for the session of 1995‑96 against the seat, reserved for Doctors" children, falling under Category‑B of paragraph 14 of the prospectus. After having discussed about the scope of Categories‑A and B of para. 12 we have to interpret Category‑C by applying principle of interpretation of statutes as it has been laid down by Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Miss Sumaea Zareen v. Selection Committee, B.M.C. and others (1991 SCMR 2099), relevant para. therefrom for guidance is re‑produced hereinbelow:‑‑ Since the words "as to whether a candidate actually belongs to the district agency of which he/she has produced the local/domicile certificate" have been used, it may be appropriate to refer to the ordinary literary meaning of the key word "belong" as it is a well‑settled principle of interpretation of statutes or the rules framed thereunder that the words have to be given their ordinary meaning in the absence of any special meaning assigned to them under the relevant statute or the statutory rules. In this behalf reference may be made to a judgment of this Court in the case of Ashiq Hussain and others v. The State (1989 SCMR 392). Following the above dictum of Honourable Supreme Court we have to assign ordinary meaning to the provisions contained in Category‑C to explore whether the reserve seat under this Category is meant for full time medical practitioners in Balochistan or it is also meant for the employees in Provincial Government or the Federal Government. It may be noted that in the opening sentence of Category‑C word "only" is used, which is normally used to lay down provisions for specific kind of person (children). The word "only" is followed by the word "those doctors who are full time medical practitioners in Balochistan and are local/domicile and permanent residents of Balochistan". After these words there is again a clause which has particularly excluded to employees of Provincial Government and the last sentence further qualifies to full time medical practitioners by adding the provisions that they should have served the people of Balochistan as private practitioners for at least ten years. Thus, the ordinary meaning of this expression can be placed in this manner that a full time medical practitioner who has served the people of Balochistan as private practitioner for at least ten years would be entitled to claim a seat for his children. We have noticed hereinbefore that the employees of the Provincial Government have been particularly excluded from this category, therefore, if the employees of Provincial Government are debarred to claim a seat under this category then how the children of employees of Federal Government can claim a seat under this category, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that Category‑C of para. 12 caters for the requirements of children for admission in First year M.B.,B.S. in respect of those, doctors who are private practitioners and have at least ten years period of service to the people of Balochistan at their credit and no other category of the children of doctors either in the employment of the Federal Government or in the Provincial Government can be allowed to be admitted under this category because for the children of doctors serving the Provincial Health Department other than the children doctors teachers of B.M.C. under Category‑B one seat has been provided to them. Thus, we are pursuaded to hold that respondent No.4 Sheharyar Hanif Khan whose mother Dr. Shama Hanif is admittedly in the service of Federal Government, but is not full time private medical practitioner, cannot claim admission against the reserve seat falling under Category‑C of para. 12 of the prospectus not withstanding the fact that besides her service with the Federal Government she has also got her private maternity home/clinic in the Town where she is working as medical practitioner, besides discharging her commitments as Officer of the Federal Government being Director Technical, Population Welfare Department, Quetta, because simultaneously it is not possible for the employees of the Provincial Government or Federal Government to act as medical practitioner privately for full time. It may be noted that the expression full time means that he or she had no other assignment with any other institution being controlled both by Provincial or Federal Government practicing as medical practitioner privately with reference to contents of Category‑C of para. 12 of the prospectus: Mr. H. Shakil Ahmed learned counsel appearing for private respondent placed on record contract which has been signed by Dr. Hassan Khan with Children Hospital Quetta and candidly conceded that he is not in the employment of the Provincial or Federal Government. It was also admitted by him that being in the employment of C.H.Q. petitioner's father shall be deemed to be private medical practitioner because this hospital has been registered under the Companies Ordinance as a public limited company. Besides it, the respondents have not objected either during interview or during arguments that petitioner's father had not served the Province of Balochistan for a period of ten years as per one of the condition incorporated in Category‑C of para.

12. In this behalf reference to the counter‑affidavit filed on behalf of Selection Committee would show that admission was refused to petitioner because she had secured less marks in pre- entry test and she was not non‑suited because her father is not a private medical practitioner and he had not attained experience of ten years of serving the Province of Balochistan, therefore; in view of these facts we have no other option but to conclude that petitioner's case being daughter of Dr. Hassan Khan private medical practitioner is squarely covered under Category‑C of para. 12 of the prospectus and she is entitled for the reserve seat under this category in the 1st year M.B.,B.S. of B.M.C. for the session 1997‑

98. Thus, for the above discussion petition is allowed, Principal B.M.C/ Secretary Selection Committee is directed to admit the petitioner in 1st year M.B.,B.S. for the session 1997‑98 forthwith. No order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./776/Q Petition allowed.