2008 PLP 1381 (CLC)

KAZIM ALI MALIK, J.

Applications for admission in Medical Colleges in the Punjab for the Session 2007-08 were invited. Miss Sehrish Zainab, daughter of Abid Rasool, resident of Sokra, P.O. Khas, Tehsil Taunsa Sharif, District D.G. Khan, appellant and Mst. Lubna Naz daughter of Hafiz Ullah resident of Wahowa, Tehsil Taunsa Sharif, District D.G. Khan applied for admission in any of the medical colleges in the Punjab against the reserved seat for under developed District of D.G. Khan. The Principal, Nishtar Medical College, Multan respondent No.3.provisionally selected Miss Sehrish Zainab, appellant, for admission against the above said reserved seat of D.G. Khan. Mst. Lubna Naz aforementioned filed Writ Petition No.512 of 2008 against the Principal, Dental Section, Nishtar Medical College, Multan, Mst. Sehrish Zainab, appellant and others under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and called in question the legality and correctness of admission of Miss Sehrish Zainab, appellant mainly on the ground that she was not eligible for the admission. During pendency of that writ petition, the Principal De `Montmorency College of Dentistry Lahore-respondent No.2 cancelled provisional admission of Miss Sehrish Zainab, appellant against the reserved seat vide Office Order No.1270-71/DCD, dated 5-3-2008. Mst. Lubna aforementioned was accommodated against reserved seat vacated by Sehrish Zainab, appellant, and as a result of which, that writ petition had been dismissed as having not been pressed on 24-3-2008.

2. Mst. Sehrish, appellant filed a Writ Petition No.933 of 2008, challenging the legality of order, dated 5-3-2008 by respondent No.2 referred to above, on the ground that valuable legal rights occurred in her favour after her admission against the reserved seat. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber vide impugned order, dated 31-3-2008.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that valuable rights occurred in favour of the appellant after admission against the reserved seat and that she could not be deprived of her vested rights. Reliance was placed on the case-law laid down in Chairman, Selection Committee/ Principal, K.E.M.C., Lahore v. Wasif Zamir Ahmad 1997 SCMR

15. Admittedly Sehrish, appellant, and aforementioned Lubna Naz applied for their admission against under developed District seat of D.G. Khan. We find it convenient to resolve first as to which of them was/is eligible for admission against the reserved seat. The Prospectus published by Government of the Punjab, Health Department for the Session 2007-2008 includes D.G. Khan in the list of under developed Districts of Punjab. The criterion for eligible candidates against the reserved seats of under developed Districts is reproduced below for ready reference: (i) The candidates must have a domicile of the same Districts Areas, and must have completed his/her school and higher secondary education (class one to twelve) from the same Districts areas. (ii) These seats will be in addition to any number of candidates being admitted on general merit from these districts. The candidates from each of the above 6 districts not admitted on general merit will compete within the districts for reserved seats. This would be subject to the condition of having passed F.Sc. (Pre-Medical with minimum 65% marks) and medical entry test (minimum 40% marks) and meeting the minimum required criteria stipulated in the prospectus."

4. The case for admission of the appellant does not fall within the ambit of criteria reproduced above. The candidates for reserved seats are required to have a domicile of the same District area and must have completed his/her School and Higher Secondary Education from the same District area. There is no dispute as to this that the appellant passed Secondary School Examination (Matric) from Quetta (Province of Balochistan). Admittedly, Mst. Lubna Naz completed her school and Higher Secondary Education from D.G. Khan District. In other words, Mst. Lubna Naz was eligible for admission against the under developed District seat of D.G. Khan and Mst. Sehrish, appellant was not equipped and possessed with the prescribed qualification. The available record does not tell as to what were the reasons and grounds which persuaded the respondents to select Mst. Sehrish Zainab, appellant, for admission against the said reserved seat despite of her ineligibility. Similarly, we could not understand as to why and for what considerations, the respondents denied admission to Mst. Lubna Naz, against the reserved seat despite her eligibility. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the appellant was not eligible for her admission against the reserved seat whereas Mst. Lubna Naz was eligible in the fight of criteria laid down by the respondents themselves.

5. We have minutely gone through the precedent case and would say that the facts of the case in hand are distinguishable from that of the precedent case. In the authority case, admission in M.B.,B.S. class was allowed on merits by the competent authority and was later on cancelled and withdrawn. In the case in hand, the appellant had been selected for admission against reserved seat provisionally with the clarification that if the statement given in the application arid certificate attached found false subsequently, the candidate would be expelled from College. The appellant wrongly claimed to be eligible for the admission against reserved seat of D.G. Khan as admittedly she completed her education at Quetta. The mere fact that the appellant succeeded to get admission against the reserved seat over and above the criteria through back door adverse to the interest and rights of Mst. Lubna Naz equipped with prescribed qualification and criteria, would not mean that she earned some legal rights in her favour. The respondents gave admission to the appellant arbitrarily and also against the criteria and this is a conduct of Government functionaries, which cannot be approved of. Learned Single Judge in Chamber dismissed the writ petition with well reasoned order in line with the criteria of admission laid down by the respondents. The order is, therefore, not open to any exception on legal and factual D grounds. We, therefore, dismiss this Intra-Court Appeal with no order as to costs. H.B.T./S-24/L I.C.A. dismissed.