CLC 1999

1999 PLP 1386 (CLC)

Miss AISHA RAHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
Constitutional Petition No.D‑1569 and Civil Miscellaneous No.4291 of 1997, decided on 17th December, 1997.
Honorable Judges
Wajihuddin Ahmed, CJ. and Raja Qureshi, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1999 PLP 1386 (CLC)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members Wajihuddin Ahmed, CJ. and Raja Qureshi, J
Parties Miss AISHA RAHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH
Primary Law Prospectus for Medical Colleges of Sindh, 1996‑97‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 1386 (CLC)?

This judgment primarily cites: Prospectus for Medical Colleges of Sindh, 1996‑97‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 1386 (CLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Wajihuddin Ahmed, CJ. and Raja Qureshi, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 1386 (CLC) (Miss AISHA RAHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Prospectus for Medical Colleges of Sindh, 1996‑97‑‑‑

Representation

  • Nizam Ali Khan and Amir Malik for Petitioner.
  • Muhammad Sarwar Khan, Addl. A.‑G., Sindh for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 17th December, 1997.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑Rr. 1, 2 & 3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Educational institution‑‑‑Migration from one medical college to another‑‑‑Petitioner, a female student of Sindh Medical College, Karachi was allowed migration to Dow Medical College, Karachi in relaxation of rules for migration contained in Prospectus for Medical Colleges of Sindh 1996‑97, but despite such migration Principal of Dow Medical College to which petitioner was migrated, did not enter petitioner's name in relevant register and other record of students admitted to that college‑‑‑Petitioner, who was a doctor's child in category of "children of medical doctors domiciled in Province", was occupant of a reserved seat, could not be allowed migration under R.1(i) of Prospectus for Medical Colleges of Sindh, 1996‑97‑‑‑Authority, under R.3 of the Prospectus, no doubt had power to relax conditions but that could be done only in "special case" which signified a hardship case or one where just circumstances existed for deviating from the Rules‑‑‑In absence of such just circumstances, case of petitioner did not fall in category of "special case" and she could not be allowed to migrate from one college to the other‑‑‑Petitioner was ordered to be sent back to her parent institution the Sindh Medical College in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

"The following categories of students shall not be allowed migration‑‑ (i) Those who are admitted against reserved seats. (ii) Those who are admitted on the basis of merit‑cum‑choice in the colleges not tagged to their district of domicile. (iii) Those who are admitted against reciprocal seats in colleges outside the Province of their domicile, including those admitted in F..J.M.C., Lahore. (iv) Those who are admitted on nomination by Chief Minister in previous sessions. (v) Those who have not yet passed the First Professional M.B.,B.S. examination. (2) Those students who do not fall in the above categories shall be allowed migration only‑‑ (i) On mutual exchange basis between students of same class. (ii) If the Principal of the recipient college agrees to accept him and issues a non‑objection certificate to this effect. (iii) Only once during the entire period of medical education of a student. (3) The Government may, however, relax the above conditions in some special cases." It is an admitted position that the petitioner being a doctor's child in the category, "children of Medical Doctors domiciled in the Province" was the occupant of a reserved seat and, therefore., could not take benefit of Rule 2 above. It is also an admitted position that the Principal of Dow Medical College, where the petitioner was transferred under the orders of the Secretary, Health, had never agreed to accept the petitioner, let alone issuing a no‑objection certificate to such effect. At this stage, it is argued that under the quoted Rule 3, the Government has the power to relax the conditions in the two preceding rules but that, let it be noted, can be done only a special case". "Special case" here patently signifies a hardship case or one where just circumstances exist for deviating from the rules. In no attending facts a "special case" would signify the case of a well‑connected person, benefiting solely on account of such connections. Since no comments, in spite of orders, have been filed, we are constrained to draw a conclusion, which cannot be favourable to the petitioner, all the moreso because the petitioner herself also has not come up with any justifiable reason. The petition, therefore, must fail and is dismissed. At the same time, the then incumbent of the Office of Secretary Health would submit an explanation in writing as to what were the circumstances which compelled him for passing the abovesaid order of transfer, such being submitted within 15 days' time. At this stage, Mr. Nizam Ali Khan has pointed out that because the petitioner is already taking classes at the Dow Medical College in virtue of the order here discussed, she would be stranded there and may not be able to go back and continue her studies even in Sindh Medical College from where she has purportedly migrated. Normally, in such cases some people must be exposed to suffer the consequences of their manifestly overbearing conduct. However, the petitioner is a female and it is not unlikely that she alone was not responsible for what came to transpire. We would, therefore, direct the Secretary Health to undo the wrong which has been done in this case and to send the petitioner back to her parent institution, such being done within a week's time. Petition disposed of. H.B.T./A‑291/K Petition dismissed.