P L D 1978 Karachi 222 (PLP)

Muhammad Khan Niazi for Respondent No.

3. Muhammad Hussain Adil Khatri for Respondent No.

4. Dates of hearing : 10th and 11th October 1977. FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.‑The contest for the last reserved seat for girls from Larkana District is between the petitioner and the contesting respondent.

2. The contesting respondent passed her Intermediate Science In Supplementary 1975 Examination securing 447 marks. She applied for admission though as a third divisioner, she was not qualified on unjustified assumption that if 20 marks due to her for having completed Women's Guard training are added, she will become a second divisioner and therefore eligible to apply for the admission. The application was rightly rejected and she was not called for the interview. However, when the list of successful candidates eras published, she got the last 15th seat reserved for girls candidates from Larkana District. It was in these circumstances that the petitioner has come up with this constitutional petition, for, according to her, she was a second divisioner and entitled to this seat. It transpired however, that before the list of admitted candidates was published the contesting respondent was given three additional marks so as to raise her division to second class. This was not a solitary increase in favour of the contesting respondent but as many as 27 students who had passed Inter‑Science in Supplementary 1975 Examination were by reason of rule 14 of the Rules Governing the Examinations of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Karachi were given the same benefit. This rule reads as follows :‑ "If required J per cent. marks of the aggregate shall be awarded to raise the Division of a candidate."

3. The petitioner became aware of this position only at the hearing of this petition and she was therefore allowed to implead the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education as a respondent who has now appeared through their counsel Mr. Mohammad Hussain Adil Khatri.

4. Mr. Nizam Ahmed the learned counsel for the petitioner firstly contended that said rule 14 was discretionary and the Board was expected to act upon it expeditiously and not allow the matter to rest for over seven months when the additional marks were added to raise the Division. The rule, to my mind is not discretionary for if required to raise the Division the requisite marks will be added. As to the delay on the part of the board. the contesting respondent cannot be blamed for it appears that a policy decision was not taken by the Board until January 1977. though examination results had been announced some time prior to May 1976.

5. It was next argued that the last date for filing the applications for admission to the medical college wits 30‑I1‑1976 and on that day contesting respondent was a third divisioner and her application was rightly rejected and for the same reason she was not even called for the interview. It is no body's case that as on 30‑11‑1976 the respondent student was entitled to admission to medical college. However, the fact remains that before the list of successful candidates was published she not only became qualified but was on merit higher than the petitioner by reason of addition of 20 marks to her total marks for having completed Women's Guards training. Therefore as between the petitioner and the contesting respondent, irrespective of other considerations, the contesting respondent was higher on merit and if she has been given admission as against the petitioner it will not be appropriate on our part to Interfere in our writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was never admitted to the college and did not acquire any vested right which can be said to have been interfered with by the admission of the contesting respondent to the medical college as against the petitioner. The result, therefore, is that there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed with no order as to cost. S. A.? H.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.