2010 PLP 662 (MLD)

This order shall dispose of the instant writ petition as well as Writ Petition No.3069 of 2008 and Writ Petition No. 754 of 2008.

2. In Writ Petition No. 7069 of 2008 the petitioner applied for admission in the M.B.B.S. class on reserved seats for district D.G. Khan. It was maintained on behalf of the petitioner that she secured 736 marks i.e. 78.0726 per cent and that the respondents Nos. 3 and 4, who had although secured more marks than the petitioner had filed the application after the cut off date for filing the applications for admission and as such the admission granted to them was illegal. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after cut off date the respondents were not authorized to entertain the applications and hence the petitioner was entitled to the admission.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has argued that no fix date was given for filing applications for admission on reserved seats as such no illegality has been committed by the respondents and petitioner having secured lesser marks was denied admission. It was further argued that according to the merit list the respondents Nos.3 and 4 having secured more marks than the petitioner were lawfully admitted and petition merits to be dismissed.

4. In Writ Petition No. 754/200/2008 learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the application of the petitioner was not entertained and hence she has been denied admission on reserved seats illegally. However, it has not been shown that. the petitioner approached the respondents for filing of the application and in any event as per merit list the petitioner having secured 78.1636 per cent marks was not entitled to the admission as the respondents, who were granted admission had secured more marks than the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced the schedule, which is as follows:-- Entry Test/Admission kit availability August 27 to September 4, 2008 Submission of Personal Data Sheets and Admit Cards for Entry Test August 27 to September 4, 2008 Date of Entry Test September 14, 2008 Merit list as per available seats September, 22, 2008. Submission of admission applications September 23 to October 10, 2008 First Admission List October 25, 2008 Second Admission List November 15, 2008 Final Admission List November 30, 2008 Commencement of Classes December 1, 2008. However, this schedule does not show any date for filing of application forms for admission on reserved seats. This has frankly been admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, who had no hesitation in submitting that the ambiguity with regard to filing of application forms for reserved seats did exist for the year, 2008-2009. According to the learned counsel for the respondents as a result of entry test 2700 candidates, who were on top of the merit list, were selected and then offers were given to them for admission. After finalization of admission into M.B.B.S. classes applications for admission on reserved seats were invited and the notice in this regard was posted on the notice board along with the result of selected candidates. According to the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 the applications of all the candidates were entertained and those who had secured higher marks were granted admission, however no cut off date for filing of the applications on reserved seats was notified. It is submitted that 250 candidates were selected on the basis of such applications on reserved seats and since there was no cut off date the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner does not merit consideration.

6. The ambiguity regarding the cut off date for filing applications for reserved seats does exist. 250 candidates were given admission and admittedly all of those applications were received by the respondent No.2 after announcement of the merit list on general seats. The petitioner has been considered, however unfortunately the petitioner could not compete and was dropped. It is observed that the respondent No.2 was acting negligently while inviting applications. It was imperative for respondent No.2 to widely advertise the schedule for filing of applications on reserved seats. It appears that in the past, the last date for filing of applications on reserved seats was advertised through print media. However, for the year, 2008-2009 the same was not done and no plausible reason has been given for the omission except that the respondent No.2 was inviting applications for admission in M.B.B.S., classes for the first time, and due to inexperience such omissions were made. Since 250 candidates have been admitted, now it is no longer possible for this Court to unseat 250 candidates, who have been moved to the next year of M.B.B.S. The respondent No.2 ought to be careful and they ought to have shown professionalism while inviting applications, which was not done. Since it has not been shown that any of the candidates had lesser marks than the petitioners, the petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. M.U.Y./Z-8/L Petition dismissed.