1988 PLP 1682 (CLC)

AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑The petitioner, who is a student, and had passed his Intermediate (pre‑medical examination) is aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents No.1 and 2 to give him admission for B.D.S. course during the academic session 1986‑

87. According to the petitioner, he had secured 676 marks in the aforesaid examination and was an applicant for the only seat reserved for students from Khairpur Mirs for which a number of students had applied including the respondent No.3. However, the respondent No.3 who had secured only 664 marks was admitted against such seat and petitioner was refused admission and hence the present petition. Admittedly, the petitioner had failed to submit a certificate showing the domicile of his father as required by the Prospectus issued by the respondent No.2, but the case of the petitioner is, that since he had attained the age of 20 years and had also obtained his own domicile certificate, he was under the impression that a domicile certificate of his father was not required. However, according to the petitioner, a letter requiring him to send his father's domicile certificate was despatched by the respondent No.1 to the petitioner, but the same was not received by the petitioner as the letter was not sent on the proper address. Comments have been received from the respondent No.1 which show that owing to the want of the domicile certificate of the petitioner's father the requirements of Rule 7 of the Prospectus issued for 1986‑87 had nct been met by the petitioner. Therefore, his case was not considered for admission and instead the respondent No.3 who had the next highest marks was considered. Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly argued that since the petitioner had secured higher marks than the respondent No.3, the latter could not be given preference over the petitioner and secondly, that the rules in the Prospectus had no mandatory force, and therefore, could be by‑passed: Consequently, according to him the action of the respondents No.1 and 2 is without lawful authority. None of these contentions have any merit. Firstly, the Prospectus issued by the respondent No.2 clearly provides for a procedure which has to be followed by all the candidates desirous of seeking admission into the medical colleges in Sind. Rule 7 (g) of the Prospectus provides that: "

7. Every application for admission shall be accompanied by true copies of the following documents duly attested by a Government Servant in Grade‑18 or above:‑

(g)'.Domicile certificate of father. In case father is not alive and no domicile certificate has been issued to him, mother's domicile certificate should be accepted. Domicile certificate of the candidate shall only be accepted if he/she is above, 21 years of age, his/her parents are not alive and no such certificate was issued to them or mother has remarried after death of father." Now, admittedly, the petitioner's case, did not fall within the purview of such cases where the candidates had been exempted from submitting their fathers' domicile certificates as the petitioner was below 21 years of age at the time of making his application for admission and the other conditions specified in clause (g) were also not attracted to him. Consequently; according to Rule' 7 of the Prospectus, the petitioner's case for admission could not be considered by the respondents Nos.l and 2 without a domicile certificate of his A father. Since admittedly, the same had not accompanied the petitioner's application for admission, we think the respondents No.1 and 2 were justified in their refusal to consider the petitioner's case for admission. We do not therefore think that the petitioner has been discriminate against or his case has been treated in an arbitrary manner. According to Mr. Aftab Ahmad Shaikh the letter sent to the petitioner in this respect was not despatched on proper address. However, the argument does not help the petitioner as we find that the respondent No.l was not under any, obligation to send such letter to the petitioner as it was the latter's duty to attach all the required documents with his application. The next argument of Mr. Aftab Ahmad Shaikh that, rules in the Prospectus do not have mandatory force, is also without merit as the rules have been framed by virtue of Notification issued under, section 3 of the Sind Medical Colleges Ordinance, 1987 which gives ample powers to the Government to issue the Prospectus or make rules, regulating the procedure for admission into the medical colleges, etc. It is not the case of the petitioner that the relevant rule embodied in the Prospectus is unreasonable or ultra vires the powers of the Government in this respect. These rules which uniformly apply to all the candidates have been framed under the provisions of the aforesaid Ordinance and Mr. Aftab Shaikh has failed to show us that they could be by‑passed, by the respondents No.l and

2. For the aforesaid reasons we find no force in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine. H . B . T . / K‑7 5/ K?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.