1982 PLP 106 (SCMR)

SHAFI‑UR‑REHMAN, J‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against a judgment whereby her Constitutional Petition challenging the refusal of the authorities to admit her in the medical college, was dismissed.

2. The petitioner claims to be an orphan. Out of the ten candidates to be selected from that District she was seventh on the merit list. She was called for interview on 26‑2‑1979 but her application form was considered incomplete as she had not filed the domicile certificate of her own and instead had filed that of her guardian. The committee interviewed the petitioner, allowed her two days to place on record the domicile certificate. She made an application to the District Magistrate the same day and obtained it on the 1st of March, 1979. She filed the domicile certificate the same day. When the results were declared on 29‑3‑1979 her name was not there and respondent No. 3, who was lower on the merit list, was selected. She instituted a Constitutional petition challenging this act of the authorities in excluding her from admission to the medical college. The Division Bench of the High Court called for a report in the matter and finding that due compliance with rule 12 of the prospectus had not taken place, dismissed the petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that domicile certificate was not at all necessary in view of the permanent residence certificate which had greater value in the matter. Additionally, it is said that rule 12 is subordinate to rule 32 of the prospectus and in any case, the failure on the part of the petitioner if at all, was technical and did not justify her exclusion from the selection.

4. In rule 7 of the prospectus domicile certificate has been listen separately and independently of the permanent residence certificate. We, therefore, cannot say that such a certificate was a mere redundancy and should not have been asked for.

5. Rule 32 controls the authorities making the selection. It require that "all admissions for the academic year shall be completed within two months of the date of completion of interviews and no admission shall be allowed after the expiry of this period. "It confers no right on any party for claiming a period of two months following for completing the papers.

6. The case of the petitioner is fully and squarely governed by rule 12 and this fact alone distinguishes all the cases which the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited It provides that "any documents received after the date of interview shall not be considered." Therefore, on the strength of this rule the deficiency in completing the documents before the date of interview had to be visited by disqualification of the candidate. This did not happen because it appears the Committee interviewing the petitioner considered her case to be one of bona fide mistake. Hence two days' time was allowed not for applying but for obtaining and filing the domicile certificate. Where the failure was of the authorities and not of the peti tioner the same rule provides that "if the documents are issued late by the Government such candidates shall be allowed to apply for selection in 1979‑80 course next year." The effect of the rule automatically was that, subject to the satisfaction of other requirements of candidature, her request for admission was to be carried over to the next year. It cannot be laid down in the face of such a rule that any document furnished or record completed before the announcement of the result must be given effect to by the Committee preparing or finalizing the result of the interview.

7. We do not find any merit in the petition, which is dismissed. Petition dismissed.