Medical College

2024 SCMR 46 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Medical collegeExamination RegulationsJudicial reviewScope

Standards prescribed and set out in the regulations relating to academic bodies, determination of eligibility to pursue studies and other related policies are generally not open to judicial review unless they can be clearly shown to contravene the law or to be shockingly unreasonable or perverse.

2024 MLD 1586 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Medical collegeWithholding of resultsPetitioners/ candidates were aggrieved of withholding of academic results by respondent / universityValidity

Petitioners / candidates were admitted to medical college under the decision made by competent authorities, which included Provincial Admission Committee and Pakistan Medical and Dental Council

Such bodies were tasked with overseeing and regulating admission in the manner consistent with fairness and equity in educational process

Decision of such bodies to admit petitioners / candidates, despite their failure to meet standard requirement, presumably took into account exceptional circumstances or policy changes intended to broaden access to medical education

Once an individual is admitted to an educational program by a competent authority, such individual should not be penalized nor should his rights be curtailed arbitrarily

High Court directed respondents / authorities to release result of petitioners / candidates as there was no occasion to withhold the results

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2024 MLD 623 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 17 & 49Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionMedical CollegeAdmissionAlternate and efficacious remedyVacant seats

Petitioners/candidates remained unsuccessful in Medical and Dental College Admission Test (MDCAT) who assailed the process of test and sought adjustment from vacant seats

Validity

Petitioners did not avail remedy against alleged act of the Council with regard to preparation of test but approached High Court that too without having any evidence to such effect

None of the petitioners prior to taking MDCAT objected to the exam as hard or out of syllabus or not in line with the policy framed by PMDC and/or in contravention of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2022 and Regulations

Petitioners were estopped from throwing challenge to the process of test

All those seats which could not be filled up for any reason, stood carried forward to the subsequent year and were to be filled up on the basis of merit of the whole Province

High Court declined to interfere in admission process

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2018 MLD 996 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Medical collegeFailure to clear examination in four opportunities by the studentEffect

Petitioner was student of MBBS and her registration was cancelled by authorities as she had failed to clear her examination in more than four chances

Validity

Petitioner was illegally retained in the Institution despite having availed more than four chances in the examination

High Court declined to interfere in the notification in question as petitioner had no right to pursue her study and she could avail appropriate remedy claiming fee from Medical College

Constitution petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2017 YLR 1571 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 44Writ petitionEducational institutionMedical CollegeNomination for Special Seats reserved for the residents of Leepa and Neelum (AJ&K)

Findings of High Court in an earlier writ petition that notification dated 17-04-2014 issued by Government with regard to nomination for such seats would be applicable to the onward sessions 2015-16

Scope

High Court in the present writ petition recorded findings that no embargo could be placed on the nomination of candidates who had completed their F.Sc. prior to issuance of notification dated 17-04-2014

Validity

High Court had taken the contradictory view as on the one hand it was held that notification dated 17-04-2014 was applicable for nomination against the seats reserved for the session 2015-16 whereas on the other hand direction was issued that no embargo could be placed on the nomination of candidates who passed their F.Sc. examination prior to the issuance of said notification

Said notification would operate prospectively and was applicable for session 2015-16

No one could be nominated in violation of conditions imposed in the said notification

High Court was not justified to grant the claimed relief to the candidate contrary to its own judgment which had attained finality

Impugned judgment was quashed and nomination if any made in the light of said judgment was set aside

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2016 SCMR 134 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Medical CollegeAdmissionSeats reserved for disabled candidatesDisability of candidate, proof ofMedical certificate issued by a specialist working in a Government hospital as proof of disabilityRelevance

Medical Board constituted by the Chairman, Admission Board, in the present case, found that disability of respondent-candidate was not of a category so as to make him eligible for admission on the reserved seat, despite the fact that he had submitted the certificate of his disability

Validity

Relevant Rules and Regulations for seats reserved for disabled candidates provided that candidate applying for such seat was required to attach a certificate from a specialist working in a Government hospital regarding the disability, however the Medical Board constituted by the Chairman Admission Board would make the final decision about the eligibility of the candidate for admission on the seat reserved for disabled students

Decision of the Medical Board in such regard was final

Medical Board, in the present case, found that the respondent-candidate did not qualify for the category of reserved seats for disabled candidates, and according to the relevant rules and regulations such decision of the Medical Board was final

Appeal was allowed accordingly with the observation that rules, regulations and criteria were to be interpreted by the University authorities itself and the Courts should avoid interpreting same.

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 MLD 701 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 21Constitutional petitionEducational InstitutionMedical CollegeLocus poenitentiae, principle ofApplicability

Petitioners had been admitted to the Medical College for the qualification of BDS and had completed one academic year; when the Medical College sent only a list of fifty students out of ninety for registration for annual examinations on the ground that they had been allotted a maximum of fifty seats by University of Health Sciences and Pakistan Medical and Dental College

Contention of the petitioners was that, inter alia, they had completed an entire academic year, paid the fees and were not aware of this dispute between the College and authorities

Validity

Record showed that Medical College had deposited registration fee for ninety students to the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council and University of Health Sciences vide cheques which were encashed by the recipients

Acceptance of said registration fee pertaining to ninety students was not denied by the authorities as against their Regulations which certainly fell within the ambit of principle of locus poenitentiae

If the University of Health Sciences and Pakistan Medical and Dental Council and the Medical College had indulged in correspondence with regard to the difference in calculation of seats, the same was neither brought to the knowledge of petitioners (students) nor their parents throughout the academic year and therefore, it was not a case of bona fide mistake ; and it was hard to believe that authorities acted bona fide with due care

Annual allocation of seats for the course were neither furnished in the prospectus or advertised in newspapers by all three authorities; therefore petitioners could not be held responsible for their wilful negligence

According to S. 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897; power to amend, vary or rescind any notification, order, rule or by-law could only be exercised before any decisive step had been taken

Authorities could not decline registration of students just a couple of weeks before annual examination

Since petitioners had completed academic year without being apprised of any technical dispute with regards to allocation of seats between the three authorities refusal to grant relief to petitioners would cause them irreparable loss and hardship

Petitioners deserved one time dispensation in relaxation of regulations since allowing them relief did not affect rights of any third party

High Court directed the authorities to register all ninety students of BDS course to sit in the examination and further directed not to interrupt the study plans of petitioners in future

Constitutional petitions were allowed, in circumstances.

2013 MLD 805 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S.2Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.44Writ petitionEducational InstitutionMedical CollegeAdmission against seats reserved for disabled persons

Lateral four digits of left foot of first petitioner amputated during earthquake 2005, while left hand little finger of second petitioner amputated as result of crush injury

Cancellation of provisional admission of both petitioners on basis of recommendation of Medical Board for disabled persons

Validity

According to report of the Board, first petitioner could walk normally, thus, she did not fulfil criteria for disability to be considered for such admission while second petitioner was right handed, thus, her left hand injury would not impede her from daily routine work, thus, she did not fulfil criteria for disability to be considered for the admission

Medical Board had relied upon Civil Pension Rules defining classification of degrees of disability, thus, same were relevant and applicable

Medical Board was a proper forum to declare category of disability of petitioners, which was its prerogative to declare the same

Petitioners had no locus standi to file writ petitions

High Court dismissed the petitions in circumstances.