1983 PLP 2461 (CLC)

(ii) 10 seats for the children of doctors in Punjab Provincial Health Services .with 10 years service to their credit. (iii) 7 seats for the children of Registered Medical Practitioners of Punjab with 10 years standing to their credit. (iv) 8 seats for the children of doctors in Punjab Provincial Local Bodies, Social Security. Institutions, etc. and doctors in the service of Centre Government with the domicile of Punjab and doctors serving in the other Provinces with domicile of Punjab with 10 years service to their credit.'' The petitioner falls in category (iii). She could not secure admission on merits because in this category admission was given to doctors' children securing more marks than the petitioner. Aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents to admit her to First Year M. B., B. S. Class she hats filed this petition. .

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that tire application for admission to Medical Colleges were received on 30th January, 1980 but just thereafter the impugned notification was issued whereby the seats earlier reserved for the children of Registered Medical Practitioners, in category (iii) were reduced from 10 to

7. It was also stated that the doctors' children who had secured lesser marks than the petitioner had been admitted to First Year M. B., B. S. Class and the petitioner has been deprived the admission to Medical Colleges arbitrarily.

3. Report and parawise comments to this petition were called` from respondent No.

1. The official has also brought the relevant record. It has been stated on behalf of the respondents that the policy for admission to First Year M. B. B. S. Class even for earlier session i.e. 1978-79 has been the same as for the session 1979-80. The allocation of seats for each category was also the same. It was also pointed out that no doctor's child candidate for category (iii) had secured admission having obtained lesser marks than the petitioner. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in fact the Government Without having complete data with regard to the number of private registered medical practitioners have reduced the seats from 10 to 7 for admission to First Year M. B., B. S. Class.

4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also considered the parawise comments submitted by respondent No. 1 and consulted the relevant record produced by the official. Notification No. S O (M E) 8-13/78, dated 21st September, 1978 issued by the Government of the Punjab in the Health Department regarding allocation of seats in various Medical Colleges of Punjab for the session 1978-79, copy whereof has been placed on the record, clearly shows that the Government had allocated 3.5 seats for doctors' children and in category (iii) seven seats were reserved for the children of Registered Medical Practitioners of Punjab with ten years standing to their credit. It is, therefore, wrong to say that the Government of Punjab after the receipt of applications for admission for the session 1979-80 had issued notification No. S. O. (M. E.) 8-1/80, dated 5th March, 1980 (Annex-B) reducing the number of seats earlier allocated from 10 to

7. As a matter of fact 7 seats were reserved in category (iii) even for the session 1978-79. It has categorically been pointed out by respondent -No. 1 that no candidate being son of a doctor in category (iii) having lesser marks than the petitioner was given admission to First Year t M. B., B. S. Class in any Medical College .of the Province. In view of this statement the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also devoid of force. As regards the last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Government has no taken in view the correct data regarding the number of private registered a Medical Practitioners and arbitrarily reduced the seats from 10 to 7 for their children. Suffice it to say that the petitioner or other candidate many bring this fact to the notice of the Government and the latter may consider the same but this Court wit4out there being any material on the record cannot go into this factual aspect of the case in writ jurisdiction in order to question the policy of the Government which is in vogue for the- last more than two academic sessions.

5. There is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. K.M.A. Petition dismissed,