' I intend to dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.2894 of 2003 (Syed Faiz-ur-Rehman v. Principal, Sheikh Zayed Medical College and others) Writ Petition No,3155 of 2003/BWP (Syed Faiz-ur-Rehman v.
Principal, Sheikh Zaid Medical College, Rahimyar Khan) and Criminal Original No,250/W of 2003/BWP filed in the instant writ petition through this consolidated judgment.
2. The facts as narrated in the writ petition and stated orally by the parties to the case are that Syed Faiz-ur-Rehman, petitioner had passed FSC Pre-Medical in the year 2001 by securing 576 marks out of 1100 marks. He had participated in the entry test prescribed for the M.B.,B.S. Class, which was held on 23-12-2001 for the Session of 2001 to 2002. But he applied for admission to the M.B.,B.S. Class of the Session commencing from 2002 to 2003. He was issued a letter from respondent No,1, Principal Sheikh Zaid Medical College, Rahimyar Khan on 14-7-2003, in which he was informed that he was selected provisionally for admission in the first year M.B.,B.S. Class for the'
Session commencing from 2002 to 2003. After the issuance of this letter, when he contacted the Office of Sheikh Zaid Medical College for deposit of the dues, the refusal was conveyed to him and so it motivated him to file the present writ petition in this Court. It may be pointed out here that the petitioner had applied for admission in the M.B.,B.S. Class on a disabled seat as he had only one complete ear to hear, while the other was deformed.
3. On 18-9-2003, this Court had issued a direction to respondent No,1 to admit the petitioner provisionally in the first year M.B.,B.S. Class subject to final adjudication of the writ. When respondents Nos.1 to 3 tried to avoid another Writ Petition No,3155 of 2003 and Criminal Original No,250/W of 2003 were filed by the petitioner. Keeping in view the exigency of the case. On 8-10- 2003 this Court summoned respondent No,1 alongwith all the relevant record for today. Both the parties have appeared in the case and the case has been argued at length by both the parties, treating it to be a notice case.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,1 and the learned A.A.-G. Submit;--
(i) That the petitioner was not entitled to be admitted into M.B.,B.S. Class because the Medical Expert's opinion had materially gone against the petitioner and he was declared mentally and physically unfit to adopt and continue with this profession, in medical test.
(ii) According to para. (A) incorporated in the Chapter of Entry Test of the Prospectus of the Government Medical College in the Punjab-Pakistan, the Government of the Punjab, Health Department has prescribed that the candidate applying for admission to the first year M.B.,B.S. Class shall hold the successful result of entry test for that Session only. As the petitioner was not having to his score the entry test of the Session, to be admitted, he therefore, was not eligible for admission in the Session 2002-2003.
5. Replying to these contentions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been malafidely declared medically unfit by the administration of the aforesaid College, so as to avoid to grant him admission in the M.B.,B.S. Class. As far the qualification and eligibility of the candidate who must hold the result of entry test for the same Session, for which he is going to be admitted, the learned counsel replied that this matter was to be examined after the cases of other candidates having alike qualifications, but admission to the College was determined by the Government of the Punjab. Till the decision of the fate of those candidates, the petitioner shall be allowed provisional admission.
6. I have examined the case and heard the learned counsel. As far the point agitated at No,(i) is concerned, it would loose its efficaciousness when the question No,(ii) is determined first.
According to respondents Nos.1 to 3, the petitioner had participated in the entry test for the year 2001 and had passed it on 23-2-2001 and this act could have granted him right to apply for the Session of 2001-2002 of M.B.,B.S. Class. But the petitioner had admittedly applied for the Session of 2002-2003 after the elapse of first Session of 2001-2002, for which he was qualified to apply.
7. Part A of the Chapter of Entry Test of the Prospectus has clearly described "that the Entry Test will be valid for the same Session only" has in fact marred the future of the petitioner towards admission in the M.B.,B.S. Class. This being one of the prescribed eligibility was not being fulfilled by the petitioner. As regards to the vires of the Prospectus, the dictum laid down by the superior Courts of the country is that such a provision of Prospectus are intra vires of the Constitution. The ruling reported in Mst. Farhana Riaz v. Government of Sindh and others 2001 SCMR 1430 has been cited with benefit for this proposition, by the learned counsel for respondent No, 1 . The Government has every right to regulate the admission policy in the Government Colleges through rules and regulations, which can be prescribed through the Prospectus of a Medical College. Gul Khan v.
Government of Balochistan through Secretary, Education and 4 others PLD 1989 Quetta 8 supports this view. The weight to the Prospectus of Medical Colleges was given in a ruling reported in Yasir Arfat v. Vice-Chancellor, Mehran University and others 2000 CLC 393 in which it was held that the Prospectus itself is a complete Code which prescribes the admission policy, eligibility, dues, disciplinary actions and regulations and all the other matters which the Government intends to enforce in respect of the candidates and for the admission of a Medical College. Accordingly, the Prospectus of a Medical College being an inviolable document to be followed by both the parties i.e, candidates as well as the Government, has to be given its due weight. In other words, it is sort of compendium of rules and regulations, which have to be followed by the players who are to play the match, while seeking admission and remaining in Medical College. The violation of these rules and regulations would be disastrous to both the parties as there would be a mobocracy, a chaos and the arbitrariness would prevail in the order of the day but adherence to regulations would save the order of the day.
8. There is no cavil to the proposition that the persons placed in the similar situation and with same facts and circumstances, and having the same qualifications are to be treated alike and no discrimination should be made amongst them while granting the right. But in the instant case, there is a great point of difference. Realizing the fault in the process of the admission of respondents Nos.4 and 5, the above noted College Administration has already moved for the cancellation of the admission of those candidates to the Government. The criteria that the candidate who intends to get admission must qualify and hold the entry test result of that Session has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, if the petitioner is granted admission on the basis of alleged discrimination keeping in view the case of respondents Nos.4 and 5, the situation would create the contravention/violation of the rules and regulations of the prospectus, which cannot be allowed to be flouted. This Court cannot act in such a way so as to violate the admission policy, rules and regulations by its own acts in the pretext of discrimination. The orders of Court should be passed so as to uphold the rule of law and not be in derogation of it.
9. Keeping in view the above discussion, the writ petitions as well as criminal original referred to above are dismissed with no order as to costs.