1993 PLP 2370 (SCMR)
RIFFAT AKRAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE CHAIRMAN, ADMISSION BOARD/PRINCIPAL, KING EDWARD
| Citation | 1993 PLP 2370 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Shafiur Rahman and |
| Parties | RIFFAT AKRAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE CHAIRMAN, ADMISSION BOARD/PRINCIPAL, KING EDWARD |
| Primary Law | Educational institution‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 2370 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Educational institution‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 2370 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Shafiur Rahman and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 2370 (SCMR) (RIFFAT AKRAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE CHAIRMAN, ADMISSION BOARD/PRINCIPAL, KING EDWARD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rafique Ahmed Bajwa, Advocatb Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Kh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1.
- Abdul Samad Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 17th August, 1993.
- 4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner being brilliant student could easily qualify M.B.,B.S. Examination and could perform professional duties satisfactorily. It was further contended that the Admission Board arbitrarily refused her admission. Learned counsel, however, could not cite a single instance whereby the Admission Board ignored the opinion of the Board of Medical Specialists. The relevant paragraph (hereinafter reproduced) of the Prospectus of the Government Medical Colleges in Punjab for the Sessions 1992‑93, regulates admission against 12 seats reserved for disabled students.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 3‑5‑1993 in W.P.161/1993). ‑‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Prospectus of the Government Medical Colleges in Punjab for the Session 1992‑93‑‑‑Admission in First Year M.B.B.S. Class against one of reserved seats for disabled students‑‑‑Board of Medical Specialists did not find petitioner physically fit to carry on studies in medicine and after qualifying examination to perform professional duties‑‑‑Admission Board declined to admit petitioner on basis of report of Medical Specialists‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Board consisting of five senior Specialists having found petitioner not physically fit to carry on studies and perform professional duties after qualifying M.B.,B.S. Examination, High Court had rightly observed that Court could not substitute its opinion for the opinion of Board of Specialists constituted by the Admission Board‑‑‑No ground was made out for interference in the well‑considered judgment of High Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 3‑5‑1993, of the Lahore High Court whereby Writ Petition No. 161/1993, filed by her was dismissed.
2. The facts in brief forming the background of the case are that in 1974, when the petitioner was hardly three years old, she suffered an attack of Polio resulting in complete paralysation of one leg and the other leg was also incapacitated up to 90% of its normal function. She could walk, only with the help of clutches. In spite of her serious disability she secured 779 marks in the Intermediate Examination and applied for admission to a Medical College in Punjab against one of the twelve reserved seats for disabled students. She was examined by a Board of Medical Specialists but was not found physically fit to carry on studies in medicine and after qualifying the examination to perform professional duties. The Admission Board therefore declined to admit her.
3. Aggrieved by respondent's refusal to admit her in First Year M.B.,B.S. Class, she filed the abovementioned Constitutional petition, which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner being brilliant student could easily qualify M.B.,B.S. Examination and could perform professional duties satisfactorily. It was further contended that the Admission Board arbitrarily refused her admission. Learned counsel, however, could not cite a single instance whereby the Admission Board ignored the opinion of the Board of Medical Specialists. The relevant paragraph (hereinafter reproduced) of the Prospectus of the Government Medical Colleges in Punjab for the Sessions 1992‑93, regulates admission against 12 seats reserved for disabled students. "
6. Disabled students: The admission of the disabled students will be on merit and subject to the production of following certificates from a Special Board/Committee to be constituted by the Admission Board:‑‑ (1) That he/she is a disabled student. (2) That he/she is physically/mentally fit to carry on studies and perform professional duties after qualifying M.B.,B.S." Admittedly the Board of Medical Specialists consisting upon five Senior Specialists examined the petitioner and found her not physically fit to carry on studies and perform professional duties after qualifying M.B.,B.S. Examination. The learned Judge of the High Court rightly observed in the impugned judgment that the Court cannot substitute its opinion for the Board of Specialists constituted by the Admission Board as contemplated in para. 6 of the Prospectus. In any case we find no room for interference in the well?-considered judgment of the Lahore High Court. In the result, we find no merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave refused. AA./R‑220/S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.