Appearance

2021 MLD 885 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.18Medical and Dental Colleges Admission TestAppearanceNumber of chancesScope

Petitioner had sought permission to appear in upcoming Medical and Dental Colleges Admission Test (MDCAT) contending that there was no restriction in giving him second chance to appear in MDCAT as he failed to avail the first chance of previous MDCAT

Validity

Petitioner had asserted that due to some unavoidable circumstances he could not appear in MDCAT held earlier while mentioning a date

MDCAT was not conducted on the date as mentioned by the petitioner

Record revealed that High Court had postponed the conduct of NTS, on date mentioned by the petitioner, on the notion that after promulgation of Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020 ('the PMC Act, 2020'), the MDCAT was to be organized and conducted under S.18 of PMC Act, 2020, by Pakistan Medical Commission and not by admitting university of the province under old law

Therefore, the contention of petitioner was misconceived that due to some unavoidable circumstances he could not appear earlier

PMC Act, 2020, had provided a proper mechanism for the registration of students/candidates for appearing in MDCAT with online registration facility and advertisement were also published in the newspapers

Previously High Court had extended the date for applying in previous MDCAT

Pakistan Medical Commission ('the Commission'), in previous MDCAT, had separated only 138 candidates due to their Covid-19 positive tests

MDCAT of only those candidates was to be held on the date, the petitioner sought permission to appear

No justification or plausible reason was presented by the petitioner for not applying in previous MDCAT within actual or extended time

Petitioner had filed the Constitutional petition after passing of reasonable time of said extended date to apply and after the date when previous MDCAT had been over

Once the cut-off date for filing applications had expired, directions/permission being sought could not be issued

Extending time for filing application forms after expiry of cut-off date would be bad precedent

Petitioner had failed to point out any plausible justification for not applying to appear in MDCAT within time when online application facility was also available

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2012 PLD 903 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 187National Accountability Ordinance (XIII of 1999), S.19Issue and execution of processes of Supreme CourtTransfer of inquiryAppearanceRegistrar of the Supreme Court before an investigation teamScopePower of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to call for information from a personDuties of National Accountability Bureau (NAB)Scope

Alleged business deal between respondent (businessman) and petitioner (son of serving Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) attempting to influence the judicial process

Inquiry into the matter by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) constituted by the Chairman, NAB

NAB authorities asking Registrar of the Supreme Court to appear before the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) and provide all original documentary and other evidence without informing him of the nature of such evidence

Validity

NAB authorities had addressed two letters to the Registrar of the Supreme Court in his official capacity, asking him to bring "all original documentary and other evidence to the "NAB Headquarter" in connection with the inquiry, but no information or particulars were given as to the nature of the documentary and other evidence or the facts and circumstances of the case

Before summoning a person to attend, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) was duty bound to identify and particularize the information sought from any witness etc. and to state the nexus between such information and the subject of the inquiry being conducted by NAB

Said letters showed imperious and pernicious "thana" (police station) mentality, which NAB persisted with obdurately, and it raised serious questions, prima facie, as to the fairness, competence and professionalism of the members of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT)

Fact that Prosecutor General, NAB, took offence to the response given by the Registrar of the Supreme Court, to the said letters, based on his justified assumption that he was being summoned in his official capacity, further created the perception that it might not be possible for NAB to conduct its investigation in a dispassionate and objective manner

Supreme Court entrusted the inquiry into the matter to a one man inquiry Commission with the direction that the entire record available with NAB which related to the present matter should be handed over to the Commission

Petition was disposed of accordingly.