1389SCMR 214 (PLP)

ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the order dated 11th October, 1987, whereby a Division Bench of the Surd High Court, Sukkur Bench, dismissed the. Constitutional petition in limine filed by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner having passed his inter‑science pre‑medical examination from Sukkur Board, had secured marks which placed him in order of merit over two other students, namely, respondents Nos. 4 and

5. The petitioner and the aforesaid two students were seeking admission to a medical. college in the first year MBBS Course of 1986‑1987 Session.

3. The admitted position seems to be that apart from the Chandka Medical College Selection Centre, 18 candidates on the merit list were to be admitted in Dow Medical College, Karachi, two in Sind Medical College, Karachi and two in Liaquat Medical College, Jamshoro. Undisputedly in the merit list the position of the petitioner was at No. 21, whereas respondents Nos. 4 and 5 appeared it serial Nos. 22 and

23. The case of the petitioner was that in order to give undue advantage to respondent No. 5, the Principal, Chandka Medical College, with maid fide intention forwarded the names of first 21 candidate in the merit list for admission in colleges at Karachi, although the required number of such candidates to be admitted !here was

20. The plea of the petitioner was that he was entitled according to his merit position to be admitted to Liaquat Medical College, Jamshoro.

4. The petitioner was bound to be rejected for admission in colleges at Karachi and as he was directed to apply for admission at Chandka Medical College, the petitioner made representations claiming his right in accordance with the rules and seeking redress to the President of Pakistan, Prime Minister of Pakistan, and Chief Minister of Sind etc.

5. It was on account of these representations that disciplinary proceedings were taken against him by the Principal, Chandka Medical College, respondent No. 2‑on the basis of rule 12, Chapter IX, Students Discipline and Conduct Rules contained in the prospectus. As a result of these proceedings the respondent No. 2 passed orders rusticating the petitioner for two years with immediate effect.

6. The petitioner challenged the order in the Constitutional petition which was dismissed as stated above.

7. The learned Judges of the Division Bench have taken the view that as the petitioner admittedly made representations to higher. authorities in violation of rule 12, he was liable to be proceeded against and penalized. It is contended by the learned counsel in support of this petition that as a glaring injustice was done to the petitioner in refusing him admission in accordance with the Rules of the Liaquat Medical College, Jamshoro by preferring a candidate below him in the merit list, any attempt made by the petitioner to get redress for his grievance did not constitute a violation of the discipline. It is further submitted that in any case the representations made by the petitioner had no nexus to the affairs of the college and therefore did not attract the relevant rules regarding discipline of students in their conduct as students of the college. We find that the learned Judges. of the Division Bench have expressed no opinion about the right of the petitioner to admission in the Liaquat Medical College, Jamshoro or the injustice done to him, for no fault of his, to prefer a candidate of a lower merit in his place. Besides, the relevant prospectus dealing with the question of rustication in para. 4‑C relates to acts of students after their admission and while remaining students of a particular college. Rule 12 forbids the students to address any higher authority directly, which implies that such a representation could be made through the' college authorities The question, therefore, is whether the penal provisions of the rules, which according to the established rules of construction are to be strictly construed, are attracted in this case.

8. We feel that the aforesaid questions of law require examination. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted. The petitioner shall furnish security in the sum of Rs.

500. The appeal shall be prepared on the same record but it will be open to the parties to file additional documents, if any, and it shall be fixed for hearing during the next session.

9. As it is urged that the petitioner will suffer in his study in case he succeeds in the appeal, it is directed that the operation of the order of rustication passed against the petitioner by the Principal and Chairman, Academic Council; Chandka Medical College, Larkana, dated 17th September, 1987, shall stand suspended. M.Y.H./M‑614/S Leave granted.