P L D 2014 Supreme Court (AJ&K) 1 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, C.J.--All the above titled appeals, with the leave of the Court, arise out of the single judgment of the High Court dated 29-11-2012 and involve the same question of law and facts, therefore, these are decided through single judgment.

2. Talha Sarfaraz, appellant in Civil Appeal No.8 of 2013, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir on 10-3-2012 alleging therein that Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government announced the establishment of two Medical Colleges; one at Mirpur and the other at Muzaffarabad, after obtaining permission from Pakistan Medical and Dental Council, hereinafter to be referred as PMDC. An advertisement was issued for admission in M.B.,B.S., 1st year discipline, on 27-12-2011, which was published in Daily Jang. Corrigenda to this advertisement were issued on three different times. After the establishment of new Colleges, neither any admission policy was in existence nor rules were framed, therefore, a meeting was convened on 29-12-2011 which was headed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. It was decided in the meeting that admission will be made after seeking permission from PMDC. Another meeting was convened on 5-1-2012, wherein some seats were reserved for Overseas students. In pursuance of minutes of meeting, a notification was issued on 13-1-2012. Seats were reserved for Overseas Kashmiri Students and students of Punjab, KPK, FATA, Balochistan Sindh and others. Subsequently this notification was amended. In the meeting dated 2-2-2012, it was decided that admission against Overseas Seats shall be granted on the criteria of nomination against such reserved seats as adopted by PMDC. The petitioner/appellant, Talha Sarfraz, alleged that he, being an overseas Kashmiri student, was entitled to be granted admission but due to mala fide intention the official respondents, in connivance with the private respondents granted admission to, respondents Nos.8 to 17, presently appellants in Civil Appeals Nos.160 of 2012, 7 and 9 of 201.3. They were neither Overseas students nor they qualify to be nominated against the seats reserved for overseas students. It was only the petitioner/appellant, who was entitled to be nominated against reserved overseas seats.

3. The writ petition was initially dismissed in limine. An appeal was filed in this Court and by accepting the appeal--the High Court was directed to decide the writ petition on merits within 10 days. After necessary proceedings, the High Court accepted the writ petition vide impugned judgment on 29-11-2012. The admissions granted to respondents, except Rafia Butt, against Overseas seats were declared illegal and have been made without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. No relief was granted to the petitioner/appellant, Talha Sarfraz, for his admission on the ground that he is not qualified. It is held by the High Court that the admission can only be granted to a person having dual nationality. The resident permit is not an equivalent of dual nationality. Talha Sarfaraz has challenged the judgment of the High Court on the ground that he was illegally declared not entitled for admission against the seats reserved for Overseas students, whereas the other Appeals Nos. 160 of 2012, 7 and 9 of 2013 have been filed from the impugned judgment, whereby the admission of respondents, appellants herein, was cancelled.

4. Kh. Attuallah Chak, the learned counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeals Nos.160 of 2012 and 7 of 2013, vehemently argued that the judgment of the High Court is against law and the record because the appellants fall in the definition of Overseas Kashmiris. He referred to the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Committee constituted for Medical Colleges of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held on 2-2-2012. He also referred to item No.9 of minutes of meeting which deals with reserved seats of Overseas Kashmiris. He argued that the nomination against reserved seats shall be made after submission of; (i) Overseas Pakistani Card, (ii) a Bank Draft of US$ 4000, (iii) Copy of Passport of parents with resident visa/work permit/proof of Second nationality, (iv) proof of tangible fund remittance by the parents from abroad and; (v) proof of Azad Jammu and Kashmir nationality (State Subject Certificate). If a candidate fulfils these requirements, he is entitled for admission against the reserved seats. The learned counsel submitted that this criterion is in line with the criterion laid down by PMDC. He referred to Conditions for Admission in MBBS/BDS Courses and Conditions for House Job Regulations, 2010 formulated by PMDC. He relied upon Regulation 9(3)(2) of the same, which deals with foreigners; Pakistanis having dual nationality who shall be eligible for admission on foreign/overseas seats irrespective of place of their pre-Medical study in Pakistan or abroad. The .judgment of the High Court is incorrect. The admission policy is according to the PMDC Rules. The learned counsel submitted that the term "Overseas Kashmiri" referred to in the admission policy is applicable to all those Kashmiris settled abroad for the purpose of earning their livelihood. It includes dual nationality holders settled abroad. The learned counsel submitted that the term "Overseas Kashmiri" is not defined in the admission policy. While referring to section 2(2) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly (Elections) Ordinance, 1970 amended in 1987, he argued that the Overseas Kashmiri is a person who resides abroad, therefore, in absence of specific definition in admission policy, the reference can be had to this definition. The learned counsel submitted that although the father of Basit Mukhtar is a Government servant in Azad Jammu and Kashmir but according to Government policy he is entitled to private practice and he regularly practices the medial profession in England. The appellant Basit Mukhtar has filed with his written statement the proof of remittance of handsome amount to Pakistan by his father besides a draft of US$ 4000, as required by admission policy and photocopy of Passport of his father, who is holding dual nationality. The learned counsel vehemently argued that Talha Sarfaraz, petitioner in the High Court, is not an aggrieved person, therefore, he cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. He participated in the entry test conducted by the Department. He applied for admission against the reserved seats and when he couldn't succeed to get admission, he challenged the process of admission, therefore, he was estopped by conduct and could not challenge the nomination of the present appellants. He referred to a case reported as Tabassum Arif v. Azad Govt. and others [2013 SCR 134] which deals with the proposition that if a person participates in the proceedings and later on becomes unsuccessful in achieving the desired result, he is estopped from challenging those proceedings. The learned counsel further submitted that the case of appellants Nos.1 to 3 in Civil Appeal No.7 of 2013 is identical. The learned counsel lastly argued that if at all this Court comes to the conclusion that appellants were not entitled for admission in Medical Colleges, then he will request in the light of the judgment titled Nasra Qadeer v. Nomination Board and others [Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1997 decided on 8-10-1997] that their admission may not be cancelled because the students are studying in 2nd year classes and Talha Sarfaraz cannot be granted admission in the said class. The learned counsel requested for consideration of appellants' case on compassionate grounds.

5. Mr. Sajid Hussain Abbasi, advocate, adopted the arguments advanced by Kh. Attaullah Chak, advocate.

6. While controverting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Sadaqat Hussain Raja, the learned counsel for Talha Sarfaraz, submitted that the judgment of the High Court to the extent of cancellation of nomination of respondents in the writ petition is perfectly legal, while it is not maintainable to the extent whereby Talha Sarfaraz was declared not entitled for admission against the seats reserved for Overseas Kashmiris. The learned counsel submitted that all the process of admission was concluded with mala fide intention. Seats for overseas Kashmiris were reserved only to accommodate the kith and kin of some doctors, who have been granted admission on the seats reserved for Overseas students. Advertisement was published in newspapers on 27-12-2011, whereby, the last date for receiving applications was fixed as 5-1-2012. A corrigendum was issued on 16-1-2012, whereby period was extended with mala fide intention. The learned counsel submitted that both; the father and mother of Talha Sarfaraz were doctors. They were serving in Saudi Arabia. They died during service on 15-6-2009 and 24-3-2011, respectively. He was brought up in Saudi Arabia. He studied all along in Saudi Arabia, got qualification equivalent to matric and F.Sc. from Saudi Arabia. He is holder of overseas Pakistani card valid till 2017. He has obtained visa for permanent residence which is valid up to 2-2-2012. Being an overseas student he was entitled for admission against a seat reserved for overseas Kashmiris in the admission policy. The learned counsel referred to Regulations Nos. 8 and 9 of PMDC. He also referred to first merit list, whereby the petitioner/appellant, Talha Sarfraz, is shown at serial No.13 in the merit list. Second merit list was prepared wherein he is shown at serial No.15. The learned counsel contended that none of the respondents in Appeals Nos.160 of 2012, 7 and 9 of 2013 qualifies to apply against the overseas seats because they were neither brought up nor studied at overseas. The learned counsel argued that the term "oversea" is not defined in admission policy or by PMDC. When it is not defined in the relevant statutes, then the ordinary meanings have to be assigned to this term, which means `Kashmiris residing abroad'. He requested for acceptance of Appeal No.8 of 2013 and dismissal of Appeals Nos.160 of 2012, 7 of 2013 and 9 of 2013. 7 Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan, the learned Advocate General, requested for dismissal of all the appeals.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is evident from the record that two Medical Colleges namely Azad Jammu and Kashmir Medical College, Muzaffarabad and Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical College, Mirpur were established by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government in the year, 2011. An advertisement was issued by the admission committee which was published on 27-12-2011 inviting applications from qualified candidates desirous of seeking admission belonging to Azad Jammu and Kashmir, on open merit seats. Seats were also reserved for disabled candidates, Doctors' children belonging to Azad Jammu and Kashmir, refugees and overseas Kashmiris. Talha Sarfaraz and other appellants applied for admission against the seats reserved for overseas Kashmiris. Talha Sarfaraz could not be nominated, therefore, he filed writ petition. He challenged the process of nomination against the seats reserved for overseas being without lawful authority, against the PMDC Rules and being capricious. He also challenged the nomination of private respondents against the seats reserved for overseas Kashmiris. He requested for issuance of direction to the Nomination Committee that it shall nominate the students against the overseas seats in the light of criteria laid down by PMDC because in the meeting of the committee for admission, it has been decided that PMDC Regulations shall be adopted as a guideline.

9. The High Court while deciding the writ petition observed that this Court while deciding appeal of Talha Sarfraz in the first round has directed that the High Court shall also determine the status of admission policy and after detailed comparison of admission policy issued by the admission committee with the PMDC Regulations and the guidelines laid down by the University of Health Sciences Lahore for admission in Medical Colleges declared that the admission policy issued by the admission committee of Azad Jammu and Kashmir is ultra vices the PMDC Regulations. For resolving the point we deem it necessary to reproduce the PMDC Regulations, namely the Conditions for Admission in MBBS and BDS Course and the House Job Regulations, 2010. The relevant portions of the guidelines issued by the University of Health Sciences Lahore and admission policy issued by the admission committee of Azad Jammu and Kashmir are as under:- PMDC Regulations: "

4. Minimum Academic Requirements for admission in the MMBS/BDS course: (1) For local Pakistani students. . (2) For overseas students. (i) The candidate who has passed an examination equivalent to intermediate level of Pakistan from Foreign Education System with three science subjects out of which Biology and Chemistry are essential subjects with 60% marks in each as certified by IBCC, is eligible to appear in the entry test of MBBS/BDS. On open merit, seats no admission shall be given except through the provincial entry test.... (ii) On Foreign seats only and not on open merit seats, in lieu of the entry test of the admission authority, the candidate is required to have passed SAT-II examination score with minimum 550 marks in each of the three science subjects of which two have to be Biology and Chemistry. (iii) ." Admission Policy: "

9. Admission on Overseas (foreign) self finance seats and eligibility criteria for foreign students and Pakistani students who have done premedical studies from abroad.--(1) No admission shall be given in MBBS/BDS course on the Overseas (foreign) self finance seats or any other such Government or private scheme without an entry test or the requisite SAT-II score of 550 marks. (2) Only 10% of seats in a private college shall be allowed to be foreign seats. The foreign/overseas self finance seats shall be filled only by persons who meet the Council criteria for admission on foreign seats. (3) The following categories of students shall be eligible for admission on the overseas (foreign) self finance seats if they fulfil the following conditions:-- 1 xxx xxx xxx xxx

2. Foreigners and Pakistanis having dual nationality shall be eligible for admission on foreign/overseas seats irrespective of the place of their premedical study, Pakistan or abroad. They shall either have to appear in the entry test or present the admitting authority/University with the requisite SAT scores and entry test marks. The candidate is required to have passed intermediate from a Pakistani Board or an examination equivalent to Intermediate level of Pakistan after study abroad from a foreign education system ..

3. Pakistani students studied abroad for premedical but appearing in the Pakistani Boards from abroad are also eligible. They shall either have to appear in the entry test or present the admitting authority/University with the requisite SAT scores and entry test marks. The candidate is required to have passed Intermediate from a Pakistani Board or an examination equivalent to intermediate level of Pakistan after study abroad from a foreign education system...." The relevant portion of criteria laid down; by the admission committee in its meeting held on 20-2-2012; reads as under:-- "

9. Reserve. Seats: a. Admission against the reserve seats for Occupied Kashmiri students.--The nomination against these seats will be awaited till 29th February, 2012. Failing to get nomination by the due date these seats will be converted into open merit. b. Nomination against Overseas seats.--For the nomination against the oversea students, the criteria of nomination against such reserve seats for other Medical Colleges in Pakistan to be consulted as guideline and following documents will be mandatory: (1) Overseas Pakistani Card. (2) A Bank Draft of US$ 4000. (3) Copy of Passport of parents with resident visa/work permit/proof of Second nationality. (4) Proof of tangible fund remittance by the parents from abroad. (5) Proof of AJ&K nationality (State Subject Certificate)." The criteria laid down by the University of Health Sciences Lahore is as under:-- "Foreign Students Seats:- (a) .. b) Foreign Students under Self-Finance Scheme (FSF): a. The eligibility criteria for admission of foreign students and students of Pakistani, origin under Self-Finance Scheme shall be as follows:-- i. The applicant must hold a permanent foreign nationality at the time of admission (dual nationality for Pakistani origin applicants). ii. The applicant must have passed HSSC/12th grade or equivalent examination either from Pakistan or abroad. iii. The applicant must have scored a minimum of 60% marks in HSSC/12th grade or equivalent examination with Chemistry and Biology as compulsory subjects and third subject could be Physics and Mathematics. iv. The applicant has either appeared in the entrance test of the Punjab Or passed SAT-II examination with a minimum score of 550 marks in each subject i.e., Biology; Chemistry , and Physics/Mathematics. v. vi. ."

10. Two Medical Colleges were established by the Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in public sector without any statutory backing. While deciding the case reported as Anam Jabar and 6 others v. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad, AJ&K and 12 others 2013 YLR 169 it was directed by this Court that the colleges have been established without any statutory backing. The Government shall immediately provide a mechanism for admission in the next session. It was also observed while deciding the said case that PMDC Ordinance, 1962 is the parent Ordinance. The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government shall fix the criteria and make policies in the light of said Ordinance and regulations framed by the PMDC. The admission committee in its meeting dated 2-2-2012 decided that the admission shall be granted to the candidates in newly established Medical Colleges on the basis of criteria and policy laid down by the PMDC. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in a number of cases has observed that PMDC is the sole authority in respect of medical education and registration of doctors possessing recognized medical qualification and the regulations framed by the PMDC shall apply to all medical colleges of Pakistan and admission to be granted in the light of Regulations issued by the PMDC. The admission committee decided that the admission shall be granted on the basis of criteria laid down by PMDC as applicable for the time being in public sector medical colleges in Pakistan.

11. The Azad Jammu and Kashmir has a special status as compared to Pakistan. Previously there was no medical college in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and seats were reserved in medical colleges of Pakistan for State Subjects which were allotted by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Nomination Board. After the establishment of medical colleges in Azad Jammu and Kashmir the seats in medical colleges of Pakistan are still reserved for Kashmiris students. The scheme of PMDC describes two categories of students; local Pakistani students and overseas students. Pakistani nationals applying for admission against overseas seats having passed the examination equivalent to Intermediate level of Pakistan from a foreign education system with three science subjects out of which Biology and Chemistry are essential subjects with 60% marks in each as certified by IBCC, are eligible to appear in the entry test or in lieu of the entry test conducted by the admission authority, the candidate is required to have passed SAT II examination score with minimum 550 marks along with three science subjects out of which two have to be Biology and Chemistry. Overseas Pakistani students, who have passed Intermediate examination from any Pakistani Board from abroad are also eligible. After the establishment of new medical colleges in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, the seats have been reserved for students of Punjab, KPK, Balochistan and Sindh on reciprocal basis because these provincial Governments have reserved seats in their medical colleges for students of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The seats for students from Occupied Kashmir have also been reserved and seats have also been reserved for the students of Gilgit-Baltistan, the doctors' children and overseas State Subjects.

12. The PMDC Regulations for admission in medical colleges have been framed for ensuring quality education. The criteria for granting admission laid down in PMDC regulation is that the candidate whether local Pakistani or overseas student, must have passed the F.Sc. examination equivalent to pre-medical with science subjects, whether passed from Pakistani Board or from abroad and must have passed entrance test or SAT-II examinations with minimum score of 550 marks. If the admission committee fixes the criterion for admission in violation of this criteria which is below the one fixed by the PMDC, then the criterion is clearly against PMDC Regulations but when criterion for admission is the same which is laid down by the PMDC, then the admission policy is not in violation of PMDC Regulations and it is a valid document. The detailed study of whole policy reveals that in the admission policy the admission committee for medical colleges of Azad Jammu and Kashmir has laid down same criteria for eligibility of a student to apply for admission in two medical colleges, as is fixed by the PMDC and. University of Health Sciences, Lahore. The criterion is not below the one laid down by the PMDC as such is not in violation of the PMDC Regulations. The criterion laid down by the admission policy is valid and perfectly in line with the PMDC Regulations. The judgment of the High Court on this point is not maintainable and the same is set aside.

13. PMDC issued Conditions for Admission in MBBS/BDS Courses and Conditions for House Job Regulations, 2010 under which seats ,have been reserved for overseas students. Perusal of the referred Conditions reveals that 2 types of seats are reserved; one for Foreigners and the other for Overseas Pakistanis. The overseas Pakistanis residing abroad having dual nationality are entitled for admission in Medical Colleges. In the light of PMDC Regulations, the admission committee of Azad Jammu and Kashmir has also reserved the seats for overseas students (States Subject) in Medical Colleges established by Azad Jammu and Kashmir in public sector. In the light of meeting dated 10-1-2012, a notification was issued on 13-1-2012 whereby five seats have been reserved for overseas Kashmiris in each Medical College. In the meeting dated 2-2-2012 criterion for admission for overseas Kashsmiri students was laid down. Minutes were issued on 20-2-2012. item 9 deals with the reserved seats.

14. The High Court has observed that item 9(b) of the minutes of meeting reveals that the seats are reserved for the children of overseas Kashmiris settled abroad and not for the Pakistani students. Para 9(b) referred to above when seen in juxtaposition with PMDC Regulations reveals that nomination be made against such reserved seats on similar criterion which is laid down for other Medical Colleges by PMDC in Pakistan and that criterion shall be consulted as a guideline. Para 9(b) further postulates that for the purpose of determining whether any candidate falls in the definition of overseas students or not, (i) Overseas Pakistani Card, (ii) A Bank Draft of, US$ 4000, (iii) Copy of Passport of parents with resident visa/work permit/proof of Second nationality, (iv) proof of tangible fund remittance by the parents from abroad and (v) proof of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Nationality (State Subject Certificate) have to be furnished to prove that a candidate is Kashmiri national, who falls in the definition of overseas Kashmiri students. When para 9(b) is read with notification dated 13-1-2012, it becomes crystal clear that seats have been reserved for overseas Kashmiri students and no other student is entitled to apply against the reserved seats.

15. The word "Overseas" has not been defined in PMDC admission Regulations or the minutes of meeting dated 10-1-2012 or 2-2-2012, therefore, for the purpose we have to resort to ordinary dictionary meanings. Different English Dictionary provide following meanings of the word "Overseas":-- In the Chambers Dictionary 10th Edition at page 1076, the word "Overseas" is defined as under:-- "Overseas:- In or to lands beyond the sea; abroad. Foreign lands. Across or beyond the sea." In the Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (Revised Edition at page 983) the word "Overseas" is defined as under:-- "Overseas:- In or to a land beyond the sea; abroad (also Oversea) across or from beyond the sea; foreign an Overseas posting. Noun: a foreign country for foreign countries in general. A visitor from overseas." In the New International Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary of. the English Language (Encyclopedic Edition) at page 901 the word Overseas" is defined under:-- "Overseas:-- Beyond the sea; abroad. Coming from or for use beyond the sea; foreign." In Chambers Dictionary at page 942, the word "Overseas" is defined as under:-- "Overseas:-- In or to lands beyond the sea; abroad. Overseas, foreign lands." In the Law Dictionary (English-Urdu), Part-II, page 1416, the word "Overseas" is defined as under:-- In the Reader's Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary, the word "Overseas" is defined at page 628, as under:-- "Overseas:-- across or beyond sea." In the Concise Oxford Dictionary, at page 851, the word Overseas" is defined as under:- "Overseas:--foreign, across or beyond the sea, of or connected with movement or transport over the sea." From the above ordinary dictionary meanings, it is clear that the word "overseas Student" means persons residing abroad in a foreign country or out of country. It is a golden principle of the interpretation of statutes that words have to be assigned ordinary dictionary meanings. This Court in a case reported as Dr. Muhammad Akram v. Allotment Committee, Mirpur Development Authority [PLD 1985 SC (AJ&K)113] observed as under:-- "

12. What yardstick is available with the Courts to know the intention of the law-makers may also be answered in this case; Maxwell in his book "Interpretation of Statutes", seventh edition, relying on Income-Tax Commissioners v. Pinsel and River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson, says at page 2:

`If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous no more is necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense, the words themselves in such case best declaring the intention of the Legislature.' Again relying on R. V. City of London Court and Mersy Docks and Harbour Board v. Turner, Maxwell says at page 4:-- 'The rule of construction is to intend the legislature to have meant what they have actually expressed. It matters not, in such a case, what the consequences may be. Where, by the use clear and unequivocal language capable of only one meaning, anything is enacted by the legislature, it must be enforced, even though it be absurd or mischievous. The underlying principle is that the meaning and intention of a statute must be collected from the plain and unambiguous expression used therein rather than from any notions which may be entertained by the Courts as to what is just or expedient.' Elaborating the point at page 5 it is stated against that:-- "However unjust, arbitrary or inconvenient the meaning conveyed may be it must receive its full effect. When once the meaning is plain, it is not the province of a Court to scan its wisdom or its policy.' Craies on State Law, Seventh Edition, Chapter 5th at page 65 says:-- `Where the language of an Act is clear and explicit, we must give effect to it, whatever may be the consequences, for in that case the words of the statute speak the intention of the Legislature." It is further stated at page 66:-- 'Some fifty years before in Salomon v. A Salomon. & Co. Ltd. Lord Waston had said: 'Intention of the Legislature, is a common but very slippery phrase, which popularly understood, may signify anything from intention embodied in positive enactment to speculative opinion as to what the Legislature probably would have meant, although, there has been an omission to enact it. In a Court of law or equity what the Legislature intended to be done or not to be done can only be ascertained from what it has chosen to enact, either in express words or by reasonable and necessary implication.' After expounding the enactment it only remains to enforce it, notwithstanding that it may be very generally received opinion that it 'does not produce the effect which the legislature intended', or might with advantage, be modified.' The point is further clarified at page 67 whereat it is stated:- 'Even though a Court is satisfied that the legislature did not contemplate the consequences of an enactment, a Court is bound to give effect to its clear language. Thus Lord Herschell in Co. v. Hakes, said: 'It is not easy to exaggerate the magnitude of this change (i.e. that discharge from custody by a Court of competent jurisdiction does not protect from further proceedings) nevertheless, it must be admitted that, if the language of the Legislature interpreted according to the recognized cannons of construction, involves this result, your Lordships must frankly yield to it , even you should be satisfied that it was not in the contemplation of the Legislature." The question of creeping of an error in a statute is dealt with at page

68. It is stated thereat:-- 'In Lee v. Bude etc. Ry. Where it was argued that certain Acts of parliament had been obtained by inserting in them false recitals, I would observe said Willes, J., 'that these acts of parliament are the law of the land, and we do not sit here as a Court of appeal from Parliament...If an Act of the Parliament has been obtained improperly, it is for the Legislature to correct it by repealing it; but so long as it exists as law the Courts are bound to obey it.'

13. In view of this cardinal principle of interpretation of statues the Courts are bound to assign the ordinary and plain meaning of a word used in a statute and to do otherwise and import meaning of which the word is not susceptible, is to usurp the field of law-makers which is not permissible for a Court. The function of a Court is to interpret a law as it is, and not to intrude in the field of legislation which is the function of the Legislative body only." In the case reported as Azad Government and 3 others v. Genuine Rights Commission AJ&K and 7 others 1999 MLD 268 this Court observed under:-- " .The Courts of law are bound to interpret a law as it is and not as it should be ." In the case reported as Ch. Muhammad Yousaf v. The State and 4 others 2002 CLC 1130, it was observed by this Court as under:

"

10. We have no quarrel with the proposition laid down in above referred authorities as these contain the cardinal canon of interpretation that when the meaning of a word or term used in a statute is clear and unambiguous, the Court cannot go beyond them and has to take them in their ordinary dictionary meanings....." The ordinary dictionary meaning is to be assigned to the word "overseas Kashmiris", appeared in the notifications dated 13-1-2012 and 20-2-2012. Therefore, "Overseas Kashmir student" is a person who is residing abroad. The language implied in the admission policy is clear. The words, used are "nomination against overseas seats." The plain dictionary meanings of the term "overseas students" are that a State Subject Student residing abroad, outside the country, is an overseas student and eligible to apply against a seat reserved for overseas students (State Subjects) whether he has passed the examination from any educational institution outside the country or from Azad Jammu and Kashmir or from Pakistan. Any candidate who is not himself residing abroad cannot be termed as an overseas Kashmiri.

16. In item 9(b) of the minutes of meeting held on 2-2-2012 certain documents have been referred for proving the fact that a candidate is an "overseas Kashmiri" if he is residing abroad and has got overseas Pakistani Card. If a person is not residing abroad, he will not be in possession of overseas Pakistani card. Under law a Pakistani National Identity Card is issued to a person who has 'attained the age of eighteen years and a person who is below the age of eighteen years is registered in Form B, but overseas Pakistani Card is issued even to the minors. The condition that the application shall be accompanied by overseas Pakistani card, makes it clear that the intention of policy-makers is that only those students are eligible who are actually residing abroad. Item 9(b)(2) relates to issuance of bank draft of US$ 4000, which means that the parents of students are, working abroad. The next document is copy of passport of parents with resident visa/work permit/proof of second nationality which deals with three eventualities. Some Kashmiris are residing abroad like Middle East. They are in possession of work permit. The purpose of demanding overseas card and work permit is that one can show that he along with parents is actually settled abroad and his parents work there for earning livelihood. Some persons are permanently settled outside Pakistan to whom resident visa is issued which means that they are permanently settled there and third category is of Pakistani nationals who also possess nationality of another country apart from Pakistan. At one side he is holder of Pakistani passport and side by side he is citizen of another country. This condition is also for proving the fact that he is Pakistani national and is residing abroad.' The fourth condition laid down in item 9(b) seeks proof of tangible funds remittance by parents from abroad. It is for the purpose that the parents are permanently settled abroad and earning their, livelihood. The purpose of imposing this condition is that they are remitting the amounts to the homeland they have permanent contact with the motherland and they have not abandoned the residence or have not relinquished their links with motherland. Lastly the proof that the candidate is a State Subject has to be furnished by an Overseas Kashmiri. If a candidate is successful in proving that he is a State Subject, he is holder of overseas Pakistani card, his/her parents are settled abroad on resident visa/work permit or they are dual nationality holder and they have been remitting amounts from their income to motherland, then he is entitled to get admission in Medical Colleges against the seats reserved for Overseas Kashmiri students, provided he fulfills the criteria fixed by PMDC and adopted by the Admission Committee. The findings recorded by the High Court that the seats are reserved for the children of overseas Kashmiris is not maintainable.

17. Talha Sarfaraz, for proving the fact that he falls in the definition of overseas Kashmiri has appended with the writ petition a copy of overseas Pakistani card valid up to 10-8-2017. He has got visa of Saudi Arabia valid up to 2-2-2012. He has also filed copies of passport of mother and father who served in Saudi Arabia as Doctor and also filed proof of remittance from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan. He fully qualifies to be nominated against the seats reserved for overseas Kashmiri in Medical Colleges of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

18. We have also examined the contention of the counsel for Talha Sarfraz whereby he challenged the admission policy and the initiation and completion of nomination process by the admission committee. Writ petition on this score is not maintainable. It has been observed by this Court while deciding the case titled Talha Sarfaraz v. Azad Govt. and others [Civil Appeal No.89 of 2012 decided on 7-11-2012] that rules and regulations for admission in Medical Colleges shall be made in line with the policy laid down by PMDC. When the seats have been reserved on the pattern of PMDC and guidelines as provided in PMDC Regulations, the appellant, Talha Sarfaraz, when applied for admission and participated in the entry test in the light of said admission policy, he is estopped, from challenging the admission policy, however, his writ has to be decided on merits.

19. We have perused the documents appended with the written statement in the High Court filed by the appellants in Civil Appeals Nos.160 of 2012 and 7 and 9 of 2013. None of the appellants is in possession of overseas Pakistani card. All the appellants are first class State Subjects. In the previous round while deciding the appeal of Talha Sarfraz have observed that the seats are reserved for overseas students and not for children of overseas State Subjects. We deem it proper to reproduce para.11 of the referred judgment, which reads as under:-- " ...Keeping in view the peculiar facts of this case, in our considered opinion, the legal appreciation and interpretation of the regulations of PMDC advanced by Mr. Abdul Rashid Abbasi, advocate, appears to be consistent with the principle of law. Prima facie, the seats have been reserved for overseas Pakistani (State Subjects). The term "overseas" when in juxtaposition with the PMDC regulations is examined, it connotes that the seats are reserved for overseas students and not for the children of overseas persons"

20. The appellants failed to prove that they are qualified to apply for admission against a seat reserved for overseas State Subjects. As has been observed, any Kashmiri student, who is not in possession of overseas Pakistani card or dual nationality, is not entitled for admission against reserved seats. Basit Mukhtar, Jawad Zahoor and Sharjil Mushtaq are not in possession of overseas Pakistani cards or dual nationality. Their fathers are serving in the Health Department of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Although their fathers served abroad and now occasionally/casually visit abroad for short period for medical practice but mere temporary working abroad does not entitle these appellants to apply against the reserved seats of overseas Kashmiris. Same is the case of Farhana Tahir, Waqas Akhtar, Sehar Maqhool Kayani Saleha Azhar, Zohaib Ilyas, Sina Tariq and Qaria Saira Irshad who are not in possession of overseas Pakistani card. They are not residing abroad, therefore, they do not fall in the definition of overseas Kashmiri.

21. We have also considered the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants in Appeals Nos.160 of 2012, 7 and 9 of 2013 were granted admission and they are in 2nd year of MBBS. If their admission is cancelled, it will not be beneficial for Talha Sarfaraz, appellant, because he cannot be granted admission in 2nd year. We have also perused the judgment of this Court delivered in the case titled Nasra Qadeer v. Nomination Board and others (Civil Appeal No.25 of 1997, decided on 8-10-1997). In the referred case, the question raised before the Court was not that of eligibility. The matter related to merit position. One Nasra Qadeer was granted admission against a seat reserved for female students of Muzaffarabad. Later on Nomination Board recalled her admission and granted admission to Rahat Saeed Bukhari. Nasira Qadeer challenged the said order of Nomination Board by way of writ petition. The High Court decided the writ petition and reached the conclusion that Rahat Saeed Bukhari was superior in merit, therefore, she is entitled for admission against the seats reserved against which Nasra Qadeer has been nominated. The High Court issued a direction to Nomination Board that it shall arrange some seat for Nasra Qadeer. Nasra Qadeer filed an appeal in this Court. This Court accepted the appeal on the ground that a period of more than two years has elapsed. The other candidate cannot be granted admission as it will not be beneficial. Both the students were qualified to be nominated. The case is not helpfull to. the case of Basit Mukhtar and others because they have been nominated against the seats reserved for overseas Kashmiris. They do not fall in the definition of overseas Kashmiris. They were not entitled for admission against the seats reserved for overseas State Subjects. It was observed by this Court in the case reported as Rahat Saeed Bukhari v. Ayesha Hameed Qadri and another 1997 MLD 218 that a candidate who is refused the admission illegally and any other candidate was nominated and the academic session has already expired, then too, the aggrieved person cannot be refused admission. He can be accommodated in the next academic year and the candidate illegally nominated can be withdrawn. It was observed in para 9 of the judgment as under:-- "

9. Apart from that it is evident from the authorities referred to above that relief to an aggrieved candidate for admission to an educational institution cannot be refused merely because the academic session for which he or she was candidate, has expired. If the grievance of an aggrieved candidate, who was illegally refused admission, was found genuine. The direction was issued to the concerned authority to nominate or admit him in the academic session for which he was a candidate despite the delay, if possible, or if the session had already expired, direction was issued to admit him in the current session. However, in some cases, the candidates who had already been given, admission were not disturbed. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent couldn't be admitted to medical college because the academic session 1994-95 for which she was a candidate had already expired and the appellant has been promoted to second year of MBBS class is not tenable." The result of above discussion is that Appeal No.8 of 2013, filed by Talha Sarfaraz, is accepted. He is declared entitled to be nominated against a seat reserved for overseas Kashmiris in the medical colleges. Since two years have elapsed, he cannot be granted admission in the classes which started in 2011 of 2012. The admission committee is directed to arrange for his admission in the coming academic session provided he falls on merit. The Appeals Nos.160 of 2012, 7 and 9 of 2013 having no force are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. MWA/1/SC(AJ&K) Order accordingl