Admission policy

2024 MLD 1801 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Arts. 25 & 199Educational institutionAdmission policyNon-interference by CourtsPetitioner was aggrieved of denial of admission to her in a medical college on the basis of Special Quota policyValidity

It was not the function of High Court to make interference in policy making domain of universities / institutions or even the executive unless it was violative of law or statutory rules and regulations

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as admission policy in question incorporated in prospectus of medical college based on Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2022, was neither violative of any statutory law or rules or regulations nor was it discriminatory

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2022 CLC 1848 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.4 & 8 (2)(f)Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 142 & 143Admission policyOccupied field, doctrine ofApplicabilityFederal and Provincial legislationScope

Petitioner, Pakistan Medical Commission (the Commission), was aggrieved of notifications issued by Provincial Government lowering benchmark for Medical and Dental Colleges Admission Test (MDCAT) from 65%, laid down by the Commission, to 50% for admission in private and public medical colleges and universities in the Province of Sindh

Validity

Main object of Art. 142 of the Constitution was to underline parameters to guide both the Federal and Provincial Legislatures to exercise their respective legislative authority within

Parliament to have exclusive authority on subjects, topics and activities enumerated in the Federal Legislative List and matters incidental or ancillary thereto

Whereas, Provincial Legislature to have legislative competency on subjects, topics, and activities not mentioned in Federal Legislative List, in addition to the matters relating to criminal law, criminal procedure and evidence

Where both the Federal and Provincial Legislatures had made a law on the same subject claiming concurrent jurisdiction and there was a conflict between them, then, per Art.143 of the Constitution, to the extent of any repugnancy between the two laws, the Federal law was to prevail

Notifications in question were based Sindh Cabinet's decision and were result of no legal authority or a law in the field, pari materia, etc. promulgated by the Province of Sindh on the subject, post Constitutional 18th Amendment, empowering the Sindh Cabinet to make such decision to even bear scrutiny of applicability of doctrine of occupied field in the matter

High Court quashed all four notifications in question and declared those to be void ab initio having been issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2016 SCMR 1459 SUPREME-COURT-OF-UNITED-STATES Judicial Precedent

Admission policyRacial preference

Race-conscious admission policy for about one-fourth of total seats to ensure racial inclusion and diversity in student body

Constitutionality and principles

Whether such policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (to the US Constitution)

Three principles were relevant for assessing the constitutionality of a public university's affirmative action program (policy of favouring members of a disadvantaged racial or ethnic group); first a university may not consider race as part of the admissions process unless it could withstand strict scrutiny, i.e., it must show that its purpose or interest was both constitutionally permissible and substantial, and that its use of the classification was necessary to accomplish that purpose; second, the decision to pursue the educational benefits that flowed from student body diversity was, in substantial measure, an academic judgment to which some, but not complete, judicial deference was proper; and third, when determining whether the use of race was narrowly tailored to achieve the university's permissible goals, the school bore the burden of demonstrating that "available" and "workable" "race-neutral alternatives" did not suffice

Compelling interest that justified consideration of race in admissions was not an interest in enrolling a certain number of minority students, but an interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flowed from student body diversity

Enrolling a diverse student body promoted cross-racial understanding, helped to break down racial stereotypes, and enabled students to better understand persons of different races

University did however have a continuing obligation to satisfy the strict scrutiny burden, by periodically reassessing the admission program's constitutionality, and efficacy, in light of the school's experience and the data it had gathered since adopting its race-conscious admissions plan, and by tailoring its approach to ensure that race played no greater role than was necessary to meet its compelling interests

University's goals could not be elusory or amorphous; they must be sufficiently measurable to permit judicial scrutiny of the policies adopted to reach them

Record of present case revealed that the University articulated concrete and precise goals that justified the compelling interest in considering of race in admissions

Record also revealed that the University studied and deliberated for months, concluding that 'race-neutral' programs had not achieved the University's diversity goals, a conclusion supported by significant statistical evidence, and that the consideration of race during admissions did have meaningful effect on class diversity

[Per Clarence Thomas, J] (Minority view) State's use of race in higher education admissions decisions was categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause

Constitution (of the United States) abhorred classifications based on race)

[Per Samuel Anthony Alito, J] (Minority view) University lacked transparency in its decision-making process to introduce consideration of race into admissions

University did not present sufficient evidence to support its policies, particularly on the link between applicants selected in the race-conscious admissions process and their specific contributions to the educational benefits of diversity on campus

Race-conscious admissions programme favoured wealthy, better educated and high-performing minorities, whereas such affirmative-action programs were created to help disadvantaged students

University's vague policy goals under the race-based programme were so broad and imprecise that they could not withstand strict scrutiny

Additionally such programme discriminated against Asian-Americans

Without identifying what was missing from the African-American and Hispanic students it was already admitting through its race-neutral process, and without showing how the use of race-based admissions could rectify the deficiency, the University could not demonstrate that its racial preference procedure was narrowly tailored

Racial preferences had only a slight impact on minority enrollment, a race-neutral alternative likely could have reached the same result

Petitioner, in the present case, had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that she was denied equal treatment at the time her application was rejected by the University under the race-conscious admission policy

Race-conscious admissions program in use at the University at the time of petitioner's application was lawful under the Equal Protection Clause.

2015 CLC 907 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts. 199 & 25Constitutional petitionEducational institutionAdmission policyQuota system

Petitioners assailed policy of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC) regarding admission to medical colleges fixing number of seats for male and female students at 50% each

Validity

Pakistan Medical and Dental Council compromised on merit for entry into medical and dental profession impacting overall merit of the profession

Policy of the Council accepted male candidates with a lesser merit with no guarantee that other 50% would continue in the profession

Policy, in question, also prevented 12% high merit candidates from pursuing a medical education simply on the basis of their gender

Policy of PM&DC, in fact, did not ensure that the best of the candidates would enter into medical profession to produce the best doctors and dentists but instead allowed candidate who previously could not possibly have entered into medical and dental college to study medicine and become doctor or dentist

Entry, into medical and dental colleges, was very competitive and as per study produced before High Court, 62% of candidates who succeed into medical and dental colleges were females

High Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, declared policy of fixation of quota to be unconstitutional, against Art.25 of the Constitution

Petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2013 SCMR 1687 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 25Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 114Medical CollegeAdmission policyFee structureDifference in fee structure for admissions based on merit and those based on Self-Finance SchemeLegalityClassification between students based on an intelligible differentiaScope

As per prospectus for the sessions 2002-2003 issued by Health Department of Provincial Government seats in medical colleges were allocated on open merit, and those who could not get admission on open merit had option to apply through different categories/schemes including "Self-Finance Scheme" for foreign students of Pakistan origin

Under the said "Self-Finance Scheme" a student had to contribute to the college endowment fund an amount ranging between US $ 5000 - 10,000 per annum, depending on the city in which the college was located, and such amount was to be paid in advance, and for ensuring payment of fee for the remaining four years student also had to furnish a bank guarantee, in addition to the fees payable by a regular student

Respondent-student succeeded in getting admission on "Self-Finance Scheme" basis and deposited his contribution of US $10000 towards college endowment fund as prescribed in the policy, besides fulfilling his obligations towards payment of normal fee

After getting admission respondent filed a constitutional petition before the High Court challenging the fee structure under the "Self-Finance Scheme" on the ground that charging of fee/endowment funds at higher rates from the students of "Self-Finance Scheme" as compared to other students was discriminatory as well as violative of Art.9 read with Art.25 of the Constitution

High Court allowed said constitutional petition and directed that all students under the "Self-Finance Scheme" should be charged a uniform rate of US $ 5000 per annum as college endowment fund irrespective of the location of the college, and condition of furnishing bank guarantee for the remaining four years was also set aside

Plea of Provincial Health Department that respondent was estopped from challenging the policy of admission under the "Self-Finance Scheme", as he himself accepted the terms and conditions for admission under the said scheme

Validity

Classification between the students, who secured more marks and succeeded in getting admission on open merit and the students, who, after failing to get admission on open merit, opted to get the benefit of "Self-Finance Scheme", was based on an intelligible differentia and was as such reasonable

Students who opted to apply for admission on "Self-Finance Scheme", after failing to get admission on open merit, could not claim the protection of Art.25 of the Constitution as they were neither similarly placed nor such classification was unreasonable

Under the doctrine of 'promissory estoppel' respondent-Student was estopped to challenge his contribution of US$ 10,000 in endowment fund, in terms of Art.114 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, as he himself accepted the terms and conditions of admission policy while getting admission on "Self-Finance Scheme" basis

Regarding difference in fee structure under "Self-Finance Scheme" on basis of the city in which the college was located, every college had its own study atmosphere due to different facilities available therein

Further, the expenditures and cost of education also changed in various cities, thus a uniform policy to contribute towards endowment fund could not be prescribed by the Provincial Government or by college administrations situated in different cities

Finding of the High Court directing the authorities to charge from all students under the "Self-Finance Scheme" a uniform rate of US $ 5000 per annum, irrespective of which city the college was located in was unwarranted and not sustainable in law and the Constitution

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

2013 SCMR 1687 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Admission policyInterference in such policy by the courtsScope

Educational institutions were independent to follow policy for admission including affairs relating to changing conditions for endowment funds or fee, either under the policy given by the government or adopted by the college; and interference in such policy by the court was possible only in exceptional circumstances.

2012 YLR 1801 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 6, 21, 26, 27 (2)(c) & 32Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences Ordinance (VIII of 2000), S. 3Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical University Larkana Act (VI of 2008), S.3Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionEducational institutionAdmission in M.B.B.S.Admission policy

Grievance of petitioners was with regard to issuance of corrigendum issued by Provincial Government making changes in Admission policy

Validity

Authorities could not impose Government's will on the Universities by means of Corrigendum in question or any other executive act

Each of three Universities was an independent and autonomous, governed and regulated by its own statute

Such independence was subject to rider that to the extent that matter fell within its jurisdiction and the Universities must conform to decisions of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council, as the Council was to act as a regulator

High Court declared that the Corrigendum was an executive act and could not be enforced or implemented and therefore, must be regarded as being of no legal effect

By reason of S. 6(2) of Peoples University of Medical and Health Sciences for Women Shaheed Benazir Act, 2009, the old policy must continue at Peoples University of Medical and Health Sciences/Peoples Medical College until and unless modified by the University's syndicate, which was fully empowered to take appropriate action in the matter

As neither Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences Ordinance, 2000, nor Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical University Act, 2008, contained any provision equivalent to S.6(2) of Peoples University of Medical and Health Sciences for Women Shaheed Benazir Act, 2009, therefore, those two Universities were not bound to recognize or apply old policy unless they themselves choose to do so in accordance with their respective statutes

High Court further directed that for year, 2011-2012 session admissions to Peoples University of Medical and Health Sciences/Peoples Medical College must be finalized on the basis of combined merit-cum-choice lists as before but Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences and Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical University could finalize their admissions on the basis of their own, separate lists

Petition was disposed of accordingly.