1982 PLP 2144 (CLC)

7. The sole question for determination is the construction and application of rule 4 (i), referred to above. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the word in the Punjab, is to be construed in its ordinary day‑to‑day meaning and would mean the Province of Punjab alone, whereas the stand taken by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 is to the contrary. He wants me to interpret the word Punjab so as to include erstwhile West Pakistan in it. I would, therefore, first determine this issue and then examine‑ as to whether the service period of the, respondent's father falls short of ten years or not. As already observed by me, the question of marks is of no importance in. this case. Neither the petitioner has been deprived of admission on this score nor respondent No. 3 has been given admission on this point. All that is required in this case is as to what is meant by `Punjab' and whether this word would extend to the extent of including erstwhile West Pakistan. The Prospectus in this case was issued for the Session 1980‑

81. The words used are "affiliated to such institutions in the Punjab'. It is an admitted principle of interpretation of Statutes that where the words are plain and there is no ambiguity, they have to be construed in their ordinary sense. "Critical refinements and subtle distinctions are to be avoided, and the obvious and popular meaning of the language should, as a general rule be followed". This is enunciated in the case of Haji Mian Muhammad and another v. Ghulam Mustafa (P L D 1973 S C 394) I don't think more case‑law is to be cited on this point because this is an accepted principle and there art no two opinions about this. If the intention was to give benefit of this particular provision to those who had served in erstwhile West Pakistan, then there was no legal bar to say so. It could have been easily mentioned in the prospectus "affiliated to such institutions in the Punjab or erstwhile West Pakistan." It was all the more necessary to specifically mention "erstwhile West Pakistan" when the prospectus was for the Session 1980‑8I and onwards. 1, therefore; don't think that I can extend the definition of `Punjab' so as to include erstwhile West Pakistan. It would be unfair and illegal to hold so. T4ere fore, I am clear in my mind that the word `Punjab' occurring in this provision means the Province of Punjab. The dictum in the case cited by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 is not applicable in this case. Having held so, I have now to see whether the father of respondent No. 3 had put in the requisite number of years of service, For that matter, I would like to refer to annexure "A" attached with the written statement filed by respondent No. 3 which contains the details of. service of Dr. Munir Akhtar which is as follows: ‑

1. House Surgeon , 16‑7‑54 to 15‑7‑55 2.Civil Hospital, Rujhan D.G. Khan Punjab 4‑8‑55 to 20‑1‑57

3. Casualty Medical Officer, Nishtar 21‑1‑57 to 26‑7‑57 Hospital, Multan. 4.Registrar Surgery, Liaqat Medical 5‑8‑57 to 26‑6‑61 College Hospital. Hyderabad.

5. Casualty Medical Officer, Mayo 16‑1‑62 to 16‑7‑62 Hospital, Lahore.

6. Registrar, West . Surgical Ward, 16‑7‑62 to 27‑8‑62 Mayo Hospital, Lahore.

7. O‑S.D.,.Mayo Hospital. Lahore. 28‑8‑62 to 21‑1‑65

8. Registrar, West Surgical Ward, 21‑1‑65 to 8‑9‑65 Mayo Hospital, Lahore.

9. Surgeon Specialist ,for Plastic 9‑9‑65 to 20‑9‑66 Surgery, C.M. Hospital, Lahore.

10. Asstt. Professor, Surgery K.E.M., 21‑9‑66 to 13‑10‑67 College Lahore.

11. Asst. Professor Surgery. Nishtar 23‑10‑70 to 22‑12‑70 Medical College, Multan. Out of this the period for which the father of respondent No. 3 he served as House Surgeon period of his posting as Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Rujhan ; the period of his service in Hyderabad and the period during which he served as Surgeon Specialist for Plastic Surgery C.M.H. Lahore, are to be excluded. Then his total period of service falls short of ten years. I am, therefore, of the view .that the case of respondent No. 3 did not fall in the category‑of "Doctors' children" and his admission as such was without lawful authority. The petitioner would, thus be at number c 10 in the list of Doctors' children hence he is entitled to the admission in this category. The matter does not end her; and a difficult situation arises for both‑ the students. Respondent No. 3 Was admitted much earlier to the petitioner. He has been attending his classes and is a regular student: The petitioner was provisionally admitted to King Edward Medical College by my order, dated 17‑6‑1981. He, too, is a student and has been attending classes regularly: In a situation like this, it will be highly unfair to dislodge any one of them. The answer to this is provided in the two decided cases of Sind High 'Court: One is the case of Abdul Sattar v. Government of Sind through the Secretary (P L D 1978 Kar. 59) wherein it had been observed as under :‑‑ " In our opinion, it will be highly unjust to deprive him even now from admission to the Medical College, on the plea of the admis sions for the year 1975‑76 being closed, when he has fully established that he was entitled to admission for that year." (3) The upshot of the above discussion is that we allow this petition and direct that the petitioner be admitted to a Medical College, in Sind and in case there is no seat presently vacant in a Medical College, the Government should create an additional seat and accommodate the petitioner." The other is the case of Farhat Ja6een v: Government of Sind and 3 others (P L D 1979 Kar. 172) wherein it had been held thus :‑‑ ‑ We must, however, observe that the fact cannot be lost sight of that Miss Rehana Saba had been wrongly denied admission for the previous academic year, she pursued the matter diligently and it was because of the equities in her favour' that she was as a special case given admission in the seat vacated by Miss‑ Safia Durrani, Miss Rehana Saba was admitted though she was disqualified and the inference to be drawn, therefrom is that the authorities concerned admitted this student by creating an additional seat, duly deserved by her, and, therefore, her admission will not be disturbed by reason of the admission of the petitioner Herein." Both the Division Bench decisions. I respectfully follow the dictum laid down in these two cases. Hence, the result is that the petitioner, who had been provisionally admitted to King Edward Medical College, Lahore, shall continue his studies in this ‑institution as a regular student in the category of Doctors' children. So far as respondent ‑No. 3 is concerned, he shall also continue with his studies but for him an additional seat shall be created by the Government. For the foregoing reasons this petition accepted. Parties to bear their own costs. M.A.K. Order accordingly.