1995 PLP 1511 (CLC)

2. Father of petitioner joined service in the Health Department on 10‑7‑1982 as Assistant Professor in K.E. Medical College, Lahore, where he served till 5‑2‑1994. Presently, he is serving as Associate Professor in the Post Graduate Medical Institute, Lahore since 6‑2‑1994. Petitioner obtained 800 marks in the F.Sc. Examination and applied for admission in Medical Colleges in the Punjab against quota reserved for the doctors children. However, she was not granted admission, therefore, she has filed the present petition.

3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 12 seats have been reserved for doctors' children. 5 seats are reserved for the children of the present or retired members of Post Medical Institutions and Hospitals affiliated to such institutions in the Punjab and 7 seats have been reserved for the children of the present or retired doctors in service of the Punjab Heath Department. He submits that the petitioner falls in both the categories but she does not compete on merits in the first category. However, petitioner successfully competes in the second category of 7 seats reserved for the children of doctors serving in the Health Department. His precise argument is that notwithstanding the fact that petitioner's father throughout remained associated with K.E. Medical College and the P.G.M.I., he nonetheless is a doctor serving in the Health Department and, therefore, his daughter can compete in the second category as well. According to the learned counsel, a doctor belonging to the first category is also included in the second category because doctors in both the cases are in the service of the Health Department of the Punjab Government irrespective of the fact whether they perform their duties in the medical colleges or in hospitals located elsewhere. Grievance raised by the learned counsel, therefore, is that petitioner has been refused admission by wrongly holding that she does not fall in the second category.

4. Mr. Shabbar Raza Rizvi, learned Additional Advocate‑General, on the other hand, while referring para. No.4 of the prospectus argues that the two categories of the doctors are exclusive to each other and the child of a doctor falling in one category cannot claim benefit for admission against the seats reserved for other category.

5. The dispute in this petition relates to the scope and interpretation of para. No.4 of the Prospectus of the Government Medical Colleges in the Punjab for the Session 1994‑

95. This para. reads as follows:‑‑ "The distribution of the seats reserved for doctors' children will be as follows:‑‑ (i) Five seats shall be reserved for the children of members of post graduate medical Institutions and Hospitals affiliated to such institutions in the Punjab. The children of only those doctors who are in service or have since retired, shall be considered who have served for a total period of not less than 10 years in such institutions provided they have domicile of the Province of Punjab. In case an officer has served in more than one such institutions the total period of all such institutions, shall be taken into consideration for calculation of the total period of such service. (ii) Seven seats shall be reserved for the children of doctors in service of Government of the Punjab Health Department with a minimum service of ten years or who have retired from such service provided they have domicile of the Province of Punjab and have served the Provincial Health Departments." Category (i) includes such present or retired doctors who are or have been members of the Post Graduate Medical Institutions and Hospitals affiliated to such institutions in the Punjab. Category (ii) includes the present or retired doctors who are in the service of the Government of the Punjab, Health Department with a minimum service of 10 years. From the language of this para. it is clear that the two categories of the doctors given above are independent and exclusive to each other. A child of a doctor belonging to one category cannot claim benefit of admission against the seats reserved for the other category. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second category also includes the first category, because a doctor serving in teaching institution nonetheless remains in the service of the Health Department of the Punjab Government, is attractive alright but it has no substance. The intention of the framers of the admission policy contained in the prospectus was to reserve quota seats separately for the two categories of the doctors, so that seats reserved for one category are utilized for the benefit of the children belonging to that category alone. It is accepted principle of interpretation of Rules that they have to be harmoniously interpreted by giving paramount consideration to the intention of the rule‑making authority. In the instant case, as already discussed intention was to create two independent and separate categories of doctors' children for the purpose of reservation of seats for admission in the medical colleges. If the intention would have been that doctors serving in the medical colleges and teaching institutions would also form part of the second category, being employees of the Health Department,. then there was no necessity of creating two separate categories. Accordingly, I find that the doctors' children belonging to the first category cannot claim admission as a matter of right against the seats reserved for the doctors' children falling in the second category.

6. It must be clarified that in the report submitted by the respondents, it is stated that the father of the petitioner has throughout been member of the teaching staff of the medical colleges and Post Graduate Medical Institute. This factual position has not been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the case of Riaz Muhammad v. Government of Balochistan and 2‑others (PLD 1993 Quetta 19) and referred to the language of the parallel provision regarding the reservation of seats for the doctors' children in the Balochistan. The relevant portion of the Prospectus Bolan Medical College Quetta is reproduced below:‑‑ "Category A.‑‑Children of doctors working as Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors, Senior Registrar, Demonstrators and Registrars in the Bolan Medical College, Quetta with at least three years' service. The children of retired and deceased teachers of Bolan Medical College are also eligible for the seat provided that the deceased teacher had at. least three years` service ..One seat. Category B.‑‑Children of doctors serving in the Provincial Health Department with at least three years` service, other than those mentioned in Category `A` above. The children of retired and deceased doctors shall also be eligible for the seat provided that the deceased doctor had at least three years' service .One seat." Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in the Balochistan Rules it was specifically mentioned that Category B will comprise of the children of the doctors serving in the ' Provincial Health Department, other than those mentioned in Category A above. He contends that the absence of the words "other than those mentioned in Category A above" in the Punjab prospectus leads to the inference that in Punjab doctors' children in Category (i) were included in Category (ii) as well. Suffice it to say that the draftsman of the Balochistan Government appears to be more careful and specific, otherwise the language used in the prospectus for admission in (Medical Colleges in the Punjab is equally clear to convey that Category (ii) excluded the persons falling in Category (i). For what has been discussed above, the petition is dismissed in limine. AA./S‑424/L Petition dismissed.