P L D 1986 Peshawar 138 (PLP)

Date of hearing : 8th April, 1986. JUDGMENT EDIT THIS INAYAT ELAHI KHAN, J.‑The dispute in this writ petition concerns the admission of Salim Khan Afridi (petitioner) to the First Year M. B., B. S class in Ayub Medicai College, Abbottabad, for the academic session 1983‑

84. The petitioner being a resideat of Khyber Agency applied to the Home Department, Government of N.‑W.F.P. and was recommended to the States and F. R. Division, Islamabad which nominated him for admission in the Ayub Medial College, Abbottabad again$t one of the seats reserved for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. According to the petitioner he was granted admission in the College ' fter he was m;Aically exam.ned and found fit by the College Medical Board and the Principal of the College also issued Hostel Admission Chit to the petitioner under his signature. But the petitioner could riot deposit the prescribed fee etc., as the College Accountant was not present. However, the petitioner was allowed to attend the classes. On 25‑2‑1983 the impugned order passed by respoudent No. 1 was handed; over to him declaring him unfit to be trained as a doctor and simultaneously the Section Officer of respondent No. 2 was asked to nominate an alternate candidate for admission in place of the petitioner and ultimately Muhammad Shafq (respondent No. 4) was granted admission against the seat in' question. According to the petitioner he satisfied all the conditions requisite fur admission in the First Year M. B., B. S. of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad, for the seat reserved for F. A. T. A. and any physical deformity or loss of a limb cannot be equated with a disease as there are many persons with deformity in tile Medical profession. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner could not be declared unfit to bee, me a doctor and, could not be refused admission in‑, the College on this ground. 1t is also stated that another student Shaukat Ali having similar disability has been granted admission in the First Year M. B., B. S. class to the session 1984‑85 against'special quota and hence the petitioner had been discriminated in this regard. On behalf of the Principal Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad (respondent No: 1)'it is contended, that the petitioner was not allowed admission in the College and the telegram issued to him was a routine matter to call him for interview and since his right arm is amputated from near the shoulder joint he is medically unfit to become a doctor. It is also contended that the petitioner was not allowed to att:nd any class and if ire went to the class room he did so without any authority ; that the case of the petitioner was thoroughly discussed by the teaching staff of the College in making every effort to help him but on considering atl aspects it was found that he will not make a proper doctor and hence informed accordingly. In regard to the admission of one Shaukat Ali in the College it was denied that he was a disabled person like the‑ petitioner. Regarding another student Ashfaq Ahmed, who was also allowed admission, it was stated that he suffered from enlargement of neck glands but after treatment he was cured and hence did not suffer from any disability at the time of admission. It is further contended on behalf of respondent No. 1 that before the Medical Examination every candidate has to sign a history form but in this form the petitioner intentionally did not disclose about his deformity i. e. ; amputation of right arm; that in the Medical Examina tion, forte against the column. If the candidate has any deformity ? Dr. Sardar Muhammad, who examined the petitioner, mentioned that he suffered from no deformity and thus it appears that instead of the petitioner some one else appeared for medical examination. According to respondent No. I when the petitioner appeared before him for interview he was having a blanket wrapped over his body. He was asked to remove the blanket which he did and on this the Principal noticed the amputated arm of the petitioner. The Principal then enquired from Dr. Sardar Muhammad as to how the certificate of fitness was given to the petitioner but Dr. Sardar Muhammad denied having issued any such certificate to a candidate with an amputated arm. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner has fraudulently obtained the fitness certificate from the Medical Officer.

2. The learned counsel for Muhammad Shafiq respondent No. 4 contended that his client has been allowed admission against the seat in question on merit basis from the reserved quota and therefore, at this stage it would trot be in the interest of justice to deprive him of the admission validly granted in his favour. It is also contended that the case of another student Ayub Javid of Allama Iqbal Medical College, Lahore, with similar disability, relied upon by the petitioner, stood on different footings because according to the Prospectus of that College special seats are reserved for disabled candidates and he was allowed admission against the special seats reserved for the purpose but there was no corresponding provision in the Prospectus of the Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad. The representative of the Ayub Medical College also informed the Court that it was incorrect that one Shaukat Ali was granted admission in spite of having an amputated arm and in fact he suffered from some defect in his right hand which was subsequently cured and thus he was quite fit to claim admission in the College.

3. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner was allowed by this Court to attend the classes at his own risk and that after passing the first year examination he was also allowed to appear in his Professional M. B., B. S. Examination if otherwise not debarred. The petitioner having failed in this examination was again allowed to take Supplementary Examination which was to commerce from 24‑11‑1985. We are in formed that the petitioner has once again failed in the Supplementary Examination.

4. The admission form submitted by the petitioner is also perused by us and we find that no where did he disclose that he was suffering from the physical disability mentioned above. The Medical Examination report sub mitted by Dr. Sardar Muhammad is also silent that the petitioner was having an amputated arm and thus the possibility that the report was fraudulently obtained cannot be ruled out. Further, the plea of respondent No. 1 is no without force that the petitioner being an invalid person could not perform the job of a doctor as he will not be able to take blood pressure, give injections, do dressing and dissection and bimanual palpation etc. which function are to be performed with both hands. Similar is the opinion of the Selection Committee of the Ayub Medical College. It is also clear that the petition did not disclose his deformity of amputated arm while seeking ad missed in the Medical College. According to the `admission policy' of the College as mentioned in paragraph 9 of the Prospectus only candidates who a, declared medically fit by the College Medical Board are eligible for admission and since the petitioner was not considered medically tit by the Medical Board he was rightly declined admission in the College. It contention on behalf of the petitioner that he had already been admitted in the College against the reserved seat would be of no consequences since under the caption `Procedure of Admission' para. 3(i) provides that "Admission will be provisional. Any candidate whose particular certificates or any other documents submitted with the admission form are found to be incorrect or wrong in any way or who authentication is doubtful, will be struck off from the College rolls even if the candidate has been admitted. A student can be removed from the College by the Principal at any time during the course of his/her study if incorrect or wrong data has been submit by such a student at the time of admission, or if for any reason is found that he/she was not entitled to admission in preference to other candidates who had applied for admission."

5. Having given our considered thought to the facts and circumstances of the case we see no reason to disagree with the stand taken by respondent No. 1 that the petitioner was unfit to be granted admission the Medical College.

6. For the aforesaid reasons this petition having no force is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.