1980 PLP 440 (SCMR)

MUHAMAMD HALEEM, J.‑This appeal, by special leave, arises out of a judgment of the High Court of Sind dated 17th of January, 1978, dis missing Constitutional Petition No. 67 of 1977. The appellant passed his Intermediate Examination (Medical Group), in 1976 and obtained 569 marks out of 1000 and, thereafter, applied for admission to the Liaquat Medical College, Jamshoro, for the first year M. B., B. S. Course, 1976‑

77. He was interviewed on 7th of January 1977, but as he failed to produce the N. C. C. certificate, he was allowed time to file it by the 20th of February 1977. It appears that he was given another extension upto 20th of March, 1977, but still he was unable to produce it ; and it was only on 11th of June, 1977, that he submitted the certificate for which delay he gave the reason that the schools and colleges were closed for an indefinite period owing to the disturbances following the elections in March, 1977. However, as the list had not been finalized till the 1st of July, 1977, this certificate according to the appellant, was erroneously not taken into consideration, for allowing him additional 20 marks to make him eligible for admission to the first year M. B., B. S. course. As he was denied admission, he filed the aforementioned cons titutional petition to seek redress of '1is grievance but it was dismissed on the short ground that as the certificate was submitted late, the appellant, by his own default, had not allowed reasonable opportunity to the second respondent t9 make pertinent inquiry in regard to the genuineness of the certificate which, on the face of it, showed that he had obtained it as a student of Government Degree College, Sanghar, whereas he had passed his Intermediate (Science) examination from a local college at Tando Adam and, therefore, he was not entitled to the additional 20 mark` pursuant to clause (c) of section 29 of the National Guards Act, 1973, as amended by National Guards (Amendment) Act, 1975. Leave to appeal was granted to consider the question as to whether the admission of the appellant could be withheld in contumacious disregard of section 29 (c) of the National Guards Act, 1973, as amended by National Guards (Amendment) Act, 1975, on the ground of delay in submitting the certificate. Further, the appellant was allowed tentatively to attend the "class", at his own risk, till the decision of the appeal. From amongst the affected respondents only Liaquat Baig, submitted his counter‑affidavit in which he not only seriously disputed the genuineness of the undated certificate at page 34 of the paper book, submitted on the 11th of June, 1977, to the second respondent but also two others which were filed in the High Court during the pendency of the proceedings. In support of his assertion he also filed a certificate dated 28th of December, 1977, issued by the Principal to show that the appellant was not a regular student of Government Degree College, Sanghar, for the period from September, 1974 to May, 1976. In fact his case was that he had fraudu lently obtained the certificate although he had not completed the course to gain unfair advantage over the others by receiving 20 additional marks under section 29 (c) of the National Guards Act, 1973, for which be was not entitled. The appellant had filed a re‑joinder and in paragraph 4, he relied on the certificate dated 15th of February, 1978, filed in the High Court which was not submitted to the second respondent and, therefore, it could not be pivotal in deciding the issue. The other allegations in the re‑joinder also do not substantially rebut the allegations of Liaquat Baig. The High Court has not given any finding on the issue as to whether the certificate submitted to the second respondent was spurious but all that it has held was that by not submitting it in good time, the appellant failed to give reasonable opportunity to the second respondent to ascertain its genuineness. In this connection we may point out Rules 21 and 22 of the Prospectus for the year 1976‑77 which candidly refers to a document on the strength of which admission is secured and which, if found false or incorrect, disentitles the candidate for admission or if he has been admit ted becomes liable to be expelled. Therefore, it cannot be said to be without reason that an inquiry was not called for in the particular facts and circumstances of the case. The applications were invited in November, 1976, and it was for the appellant to have obtained the certificate if he had undergone the Cadet Training course and produced it : : the time of his interview on 7th of January, 1977, under rule 12 (c) of the Prospectus if he wanted to have the benefit of the additional 20 marks. Not having done so he was given time upto 20th of February, 1977, but again he failed to produce the certi ficate. A further extension appears to have been given to him upto 20th of March, 1977. It may here be pointed out that all those candidates who had attended the Cadet Training course had produced their certificates and they were given the benefit of the additional 20 marks. As the terminal date was 20th of March, 1977 and the appellant failed to comply with the essential requirement of rule 12 (c) of the Prospectus within the extended .time, the list of successful candidates was finalised and submitted to the first respondent on 16th of June, 1977. If the appellant, by his own lapse delayed in submitting the certificate until 11th of June, 1977, the first two respondents were within their right to ignore it and we do not see how we can interfere with the exercise of their discretion. Even otherwise, if the contention of the appellant is taken to its logical conclusion then if the results were finalised for the year 1976‑77, he could still claim admission if he were to submit his certificate two years later, which appears to us to be preposterous. In this background, to urge that until the time of the finalisation of the list of the successful candidates sufficient time intervened to enable the first two respondents to verify the genuineness of the certi ficate is again misconceived as the respondents were under no legal obliga tion to take into consideration the certificate after the terminal date that is 20th of March, 1977. If the appellant had been cautious he should have again applied for further extension of time for the reason which he has given elsewhere but not having done that he cannot, as of right, demand its consideration in violation of rule 12 (c) of the Prospectus, on the same principle that where a legal remedy is barred by limitation, the right may be there but there is no remedy to enforce it. We may here observe that the admissions to the colleges are governed by the Rules in the Prospectus. and it is for the candidate to see that he fulfils) what is desired of him and in the eventuality of his default in any essential [‑e respect he cannot have a legal right to claim admission. Such being the case here we do not see how it is a case of an improper exercise of discretion. Accordingly, the order of the High Court is unexceptionable in the context of the above discussion, The appellant was given admission on the strength of the order of this Court to the first year M. B., B. S. Course, 1977‑78, at his own risk till 40 the disposal of the appeal. It will be for the first two respondents to allow him to further continue his studies as he has failed to make out a case for interference. The appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs, Appeal dismissed.