1996 PLP 849 (MLD)

MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.‑‑‑In this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner has challenged the refusal of the respondents to admit him to 1st year M.B., B.S. Class on the ground that he lacked requisite qualification.

2. The facts which are not in dispute between the parties are that the petitioner obtained a General Certificate of Education (Advance Level) from London as a student of Filton College, Bristol, United Kingdom. On the basis of the aforesaid qualification he applied for admission to a Medical College in Punjab for the Session 1992‑

93. Along with the application he submitted a certificate granted by the Punjab University wherein it was opined that he was entitled to grant of provisional admission in the College. The application of the petitioner was, however, rejected on the ground that on the basis of formula of equivalence is considered to have obtained 75 % marks which came to 829 out of 1100 marks and as such he did not qualify for admission on merits. This action of the respondents has been challenged by the petitioner as being discriminatory.

3. Both in the report and parawise comments as also their written statement the respondents have relied upon para. 23 of the Prospectus of the Government Medical Colleges in the Punjab under which equivalence of merit is to be determined by the Admission Board. It has been stated that according to the formula adopted by the Board the person who has secured Grade‑A from a foreign University is considered to have obtained 75 marks out of 100 while Grade‑B is considered equivalent to 65 % marks.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no power vesting in the respondents to refuse admission by quantifying the grade obtained by the petitioner into marks, as such power, according to the learned counsel, only vests in the University of Punjab. In the alternative it has been argued that the formula applied by the respondents is arbitrary ubimsical and unreasonable.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate‑General has defended the impugned order by referring to para. 23 of the Prospectus. The alternative submission is that the petitioner, in any case, was not qualified to be admitted. 6 regards the question as to whether or not the petitioner possesses the requisite qualification for admission, it is to be seen that a certificate was issued by the University of Punjab wherein it was stated that the petitioner was entitled to be provisional admission. During the pendency of this petition the petitioner had obtained further qualification which, in any event, entitled him to admission in a Medical College as is evident from the letters dated 30‑9‑1992 and 18‑2‑1993 (Annexures R‑I and R‑II) issued by the Deputy Registrar, University of Punjab.

7. The more important question, which, however rises, is as to the authority of the Admission Board under para. 23 of the Prospectus regarding equivalence of merits of the candidates who had obtained foreign qualification and the validity of the formula applied them. This para. reads as under:‑‑‑ "Foreign qualified candidates. ‑‑‑Candidates belonging to Punjab Province and Federal Capital Area who possess qualifications equal to intermediate (Pre‑Medical) in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology can apply for admission. Only those qualifications which have been declared equivalent to F.Sc. (Pre‑Medical) by the relevant University for admission to the medical colleges of Punjab will be considered. The equivalence of merit will be determined by the Admission Board. The formula for determining merit of the candidates holding qualifications other than F.Sc. (Pre‑Medical) is given in Appendix‑II.

8. It is a common ground between the parties that minimum qualification prescribed for admission of a student is F.Sc. (Pre‑Medical). It is also not disputed that the power to decide as to whether a particular qualification is equivalent to F.Sc. vests in the University of Punjab, as regards the Medical Colleges in the Province. Although in F.Sc. examination, marks are awarded to the candidates but in certain other systems of education like ' A' Level, Senior Cambridge instead of marks, grades are awarded by the University. In such a situation, the question which arises is as to how to translate the grades into marks. According to the petitioner this power also vests in the University and not in the respondents. However, we are not in a position to accept this contention inasmuch as there is a distinction between the equivalence of qualification and equivalence of merit. The question of equivalence of qualification is to be considered by the University. However, the power to equalise the merit vests in the Board of Admission under para. 23 of the Prospectus. To that extent no possible exception can be taken. The admission to the Medical Colleges is generally granted on the basis of open merit on the basis of marks obtained in the examination. In the cases where marks are not awarded in the examination but instead the candidate is graded it is essential to quantify the grades into marks so as to enable the Admission Board to determine the position at which those candidates are to be placed in the merit list. We have, therefore, no hesitation in repelling this argument of the learned counsel.

9. There is, however, force in the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the formula adopted by the respondents while translating grades into marks is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory. According to the respondents, the Members of the Board of Admission had in a meeting decided that a student who has obtained Grade‑A in G.C.E. Advance Level Examination shall be deemed to have obtained 75 % marks and the students in B‑Grade should be taken to have secured 85 % marks. We have repeatedly called upon the respondents to produce material on the basis of which this formula has been worked out but they were unable to do so. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General frankly conceded that except that decision of the Board there is no other material available with the respondents.

10. On the other hand, the petitioner has placed on record various documents to show that in other Universities in Pakistan while translating grades into marks when much higher percentage has been employed and ' A‑Grade' has been considered as equivalent to 90 % of the total marks. The most important evidence in this behalf appears to be the certificate (Annex. ' F') issued by The British Council on 15‑11‑1992, according to which w.e.f. May/June, 1992, Grade ' A' GCE Examination has been equated to 80 % and Grade ' B' has been equated to 79% of the total marks. It has also been stated in the letter dated 2‑12‑1992 (Annexure ' G') that Grade ' A' obtained at Advanced Level has been considered as excellent. Coming nearer to home it is to be seen that the University of Engineering and Technology as per para. 39.7 of the Prospectus awards 90 % marks to Grade ' A' marks to Grade ' A' and 80 % to Grade ' B' . It is thus evident that the formula adopted by the respondents for the year in I question was highly unreasonable discriminatory and not based upon material and was thus clearly whimsical. It is not denied by the respondents that according to the revised percentage the petitioner would be entitled to admission.

11. The respondents in their para‑wise comments have in support of their contentions referred to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.7083 of 1990 wherein the formula has been upheld. The reliance of the respondents on the aforesaid judgment is well placed as it was challenged in I.C.A. No.593 of 1991 which was allowed and the case was remanded to the Admission Board for re‑determination keeping in view the system of education under which the foreign degree had been obtained. It was also observed that the criteria adopted by the respondents must be objective. In the present case, as already observed, no material has been placed before us to show the method by which the formula has been evolved and a particular percentage has been fixed as being equivalent to the grade awarded by foreign University. Before parting with this case it may be mentioned that under interim order passed by a Division Bench of this Court the petitioner was granted provisional admission and has by now passed the M.B., B.S. Ist professional examination. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the refusal of the respondents to award admission to the petitioner is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. There shall be no order as to IC costs. A.A./H‑175/L Petition accepted