1992 PLP 391 (CLC)

MEHBUB ALI KHAN, J.‑‑‑Miss Shazia Ayub in this Constitutional petition lodged under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has challenged the validity of letter No.680/PS‑4/KMC dated 27‑1‑1991 whereby Principals of the Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad and Khyber Medical College, Peshawar (now respondents Nos.l and 2 in the petition) have declined to allow her admission in 1st year M.B.,B.S. class in Ayub Medical College against the seat reserved for the children of non teaching staff and gave that seat to Mahmood Taj respondent No.3. The petitioner has asked for declaring the action of respondents Nos.1 and 2 in this context without lawful authority, void, in excess of jurisdiction and of no legal effect and directing the aforesaid respondents to grant provisional admission to the petitioner in M.B.,B.S. 1st year class in place of respondent No.3.

2. Mr. Muhammad Ayub father of Miss Shazia Ayub is a retired Librarian of Ayub Medical College. He had retired from the College service on 17th March, 1988. The petitioner states that she being the daughter of a permanent non‑teaching staff of the College had a right to be admitted in 1st year M.B.,B.S. class on one seat reserved for the permanent non‑teaching staff of the College with at least three years' service against Muhammad Taj respondent who had stood below the merit list against the petitioner in the Intermediate Examination (Pre‑Medical Group) Session, 1988 Annual by securing 642 marks, She has based her claim on clause (vi) of the Ayub Medical College Prospectus for the year 1990‑91 at page 14 wherein one seat has been reserved for the children of permanent non‑teaching staff of the College with at least three years' service.

3. We have heard Mr. Abdullah Jan Mirza, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Awan the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Nazir Ahmed Lughmani, Advocate for respondent No.3.

4. It is not denied that Miss Shazia Ayub is the daughter of a retired permanent employee of Ayub Medical College who had put more than three years' service in the College. This fact has also been admitted that the marks obtained by the petitioner in her Intermediate (pre‑medical group) examination for the year 1988 (annual) are more than the marks obtained by Mr. Mahmood Taj respondent No.3. Miss Shazia Ayub had secured 642 marks a8ainst 546 of Mahmood Taj. The adjusted marks of the petitioner come to 652 against 556 of respondent No.3. The petitioner claims one reserved seat which according to clause (vi) at page 14 of the College Prospectus for the year 1990‑91 has been retained for the children of non‑teaching staff. It would be better to reproduce the text of clause (vi) which is as under:‑‑ "(vi) Seats reserved for the children of non‑teaching, staff.‑‑One seat will be reserved for the children of permanent non‑teaching staff of Ayub Medical College with at least 3 years' service in the College."

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has given much stress on the point, that in clause (vi) of the College Prospectus there is no mention of the children of the existing or retired non‑teaching staff and the benefit of this clause shall as such equally go to the children of both the present and the retired permanent non‑teaching staff of the College. In support thereof he has mentioned the example of one Miss Fizza Jamil Khan who being the daughter of a retired Professor of the Ayub Medical College had been admitted to the 1st year M.B.,B.S. class against a seat reserved for the teaching staff. The explanation given from the College side in this context is, that as no claimant for the one seat reserved for the children of teaching staff was available during the Session from amongst the teachers on active service Miss Fizza Jamil Khan was, therefore, admitted against the said seat. That in case when there are two candidates one from the active side and other from the active side preference shall be given to that of the active side. That on the same analogy the College authorities have made admission of Mahmqod Taj respondent No.3 against the claim of Miss Shazia Ayub.

6. A plain reading of clause (vi) of the College Prospectus (at page 14 as reproduced above) would indicate, that one seat has been reserved for the children of permanent non‑teaching staff with at least 3 years' service in the College. The condition of 3 years' service in the College clearly means that the seat has been reserved for the children of the existing permanent non‑teaching staff. We have located the meaning of the word `staff' in the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary (new Edition) at page 1258 which are "a body of officers who help a commanding officer, or perform special duties, a body of persons employed in an establishment, usu. on management, administration, clerical, etc., work as distinct from manual, the body of teachers or lecturers in a school, college, university, etc". From these meanings given to the word `staff' in the Chamber Dictionary one can easily understand, that the word used in clause (vi) of the College Prospectus connotes the children of the persons who are on the rolls of the existing non‑teaching staff of the College and it by no standard of interpretation can include a retired person. It is true that Miss Fizza Jamil Khan the daughter of retired Professor has been given admission in the College against the reserved seat of the teaching staff of the College but we would not enter into the merits or demerits of this admission for the simple reason, that Miss Fizza Jamil Khan is not a respondent before us in this petition and that in her case the seat reserved was that of the children of the teaching staff, besides the fact that on the said seat no son/daughter of an active member of the teaching staff was available for admission and the seat would have gone vacant if not filled in that manner. The learned counsel wants to place reliance in support of his case on a judgment of the Supreme. Court of Pakistan reported in PLD 1990 SC

159. On a careful reading of this case‑law we find that, as admission to Miss Shazia Ayub has not been refused by the college authorities on sex ground and no discrimination had taken place to the petitioner on tier being a female against the admission of respondent No‑3 which did not also take place on account of his being a boy, this authority, with utmost respect would be as such easily distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the instant case.

7. In this view of the matter which we take, we see that there was no illegality in the admission of respondent No.3 to the M.B.,B.S. 1st year class in the current session of the Ayub Medical College and the order of his admission on any score cannot be termed as an order passed without lawful authority and as such of no legal effect. The writ petition in the circumstances shall be dismissed with costs. A.A./1274/P Petition dismissed.