On the 18th of September, 1978, a Notification was issued in the Pakistan Times inviting applications for admission to Medical Colleges by the 15th of. October, 1978. A copy of the Notification is Annexure "E"
On the 16th December, 1978, another announcement appeared is the same Paper extending the date for the submission of applications to the 30th of December, 1978. The results of the autumn examinations of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, were announced on the 27th of December, 1978. The petitioner passed this examination in the First Division and obtained 686 marks. Under the N. C. C. Law, he is entitled to the addition of another 20 marks on the basis of his having completed the N. C. C. Course and thus he has 706 marks to his credit.
2. The petitioner applied for admission. The authorities initially declined to receive the application on the ground that the matter had been taken up with the Government and the result was awaited.
3. On the 30th of December, 1978, i.e. The last date on which the applications could be submitted, the application of the petitioner was received in the King Edward Medical College, Lahore, and a receipt was issued therefor, a photostat of which is Annexure "F" to the writ petition.
4. It has been stated in the petition that the President of the Admission Committee i.e. The Principal of the King Edward Medical College, Lahore, has taken up the stand that the candidates for admission who passed in the autumn examination of 1978 cannot be considered for admission to the Medical Colleges along with those who passed in the spring examination of the same year.
Since this excludes the petitioner from consideration for admission for the 1978-79 Session, he has felt aggrieved and filed this petition.
5. One of the respondents to the petition is Mr. S. A. Wasim son of Abdul Majid who is one of the candidates for admission who qualified in the spring examination of 1978 and is apprehensive of being adversely affected by a decision in favour of the petitioner in this petition, although he claims to be entitled to be admitted to the Medical College if those who have qualified in the autumn examination are excluded from admission in this session.
6. It has been submitted before me that according to the Prospectus, admission to the college is on merit and there is no mention of one examination or the other in it. I have been told that the first term of the College Session according to the Prospectus begins from 1st of October and ends on the 24th of December. It has been urged that no selection has been made so far or was made till 30th of December, 19718, and there has been no amendment of the Prospectus. Instances have been cited from the previous years when persons who have passed their examination in different years were admitted to the same course in the Medical College. Reliance was placed on Miss Majida Tabassam v. Government of Sind and 3 others PLD 1978 Kar. 222. In that case, the contest was for admission to the last reserved seat for girls from Larkana District between the petitioner in that case and the contesting respondent. The contesting respondent bad obtained 447 marks in the 1975 Supplementary Examination. Her application was rejected and she was not called for the interview. Ostensibly, the reason for this was that she has passed in the Third Division and simply because she was allowed to add 20 marks on account of her having completed the N. C. C. Course would not entitle her to be inducted into the college. It, however, transpired that she was admitted to the College on the last 15 seats reserved for girl candidates so that the petitioner in that case felt aggrieved and knocked the door of the Court. It may be noted that before the list of admitted candidates was published, the contesting respondent was given 3 additional marks under the rules so as to raise her division to a Second Class. In fact, about 27 others also got the same concession.
7. Dismissing the petition, the learned Judge observed : "It was never argued that the last date for filing the applications for admission to the Medical College was 30-11-1976 and on that day contesting respondent was a third divisioner and her application was rightly rejected and for the same reason she was not even called for the interview.
It is nobody's case that as on 30-11-1976 the respondent student was entitled to admission to medical college. However, the fact remains that before the list of successful candidates was published she not only became qualified but was on merit higher than the petitioner by reason of addition of 20 marks to her total marks for having completed Women's Guards Training. Therefore, as between the petitioner and the contesting respondent, irrespective of other considerations, the contesting respondent was higher on merit and if she has been given admission as against the petitioner it will not be appropriate on our part to interfere in our writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was never admitted to the college and did not acquire any vested right which can be said to have been interfered with by the admission of the contesting respondent to the Medical College as against the petitioner."
This decision is not relevant to the case before me for the simple reason that it pertained to parties who had appeared and qualified in the same examination held in a particular year and would, therefore, not help the petitioner before me who has admittedly qualified in a different examination. It was sought to be argued that merit according to this ruling has to be determined on the date when the selection is being made. There could be no quarrel with this proposition but merit has to be determined among those who have been asked to apply for admission to the college and not out of those who, though they may be entitled to apply 'for admission in years to come, did not fall in the class of those persona from whom applications had been invited.
8. Reliance has also been placed on Ihsanul Haq and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1976 Lah. 501. Their Lordships observed in paragraph 2 of their judgment that "All these writ petitions pertained to seeing admission in the Medical, Colleges of Punjab. The first point' argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that somewhere in April 1975 (to be more precise through advertisement dated 22-4-1975) certain additional seats were created in a new College-(to be opened in Lahore and), known as Lahore Medical College and similar increase of certain number of seats was made in Rawalpindi College. While making admission in these Colleges students who had passed F. Sc. (Pre-medical in bi-annual supplementary examination were also taken or being taken into consideration. The case of the petitioners was that applications of those students who had passed F. Sc. In bi-annual/ supplementary Examination should not be or should not have been taken into consideration for the aforesaid additional seats which, according to the petitioners, should rather be filled up from the applicants who had applied earlier on the basis of having passed F. Sc. (Pre-medical) in Annual Examination with reference to earlier advertisement in that respect. The contention has no merit. The petitioners applied with reference to earlier advertisements which pertained to those seats and those Colleges which existed at the time of those advertisements. At that time the number of Colleges and seats advertised was fixed and if later on simultaneously with increase of seats or Colleges the circumstances of applicants and applications were also enlarged the petitioners cannot have any just or legal grievance against the same, because, for new Colleges and seats the authorities concerned were free to lay down such rules and scope as they like. We have not been shown that there existed any legal bar on the part of the authorities to do so or act accordingly. The petitioner rather should be grateful that their cases were (again) also considered for those seats, but if even then they stand below and if there were as still persons who had secured more marks than the petitioners and were accordingly admitted or were likely to be admitted on merits, the deficiency and defect, if any, pertained to the capabilities of the petitioners rather than in the authority of the Government to lay down policies and principles on the subject in hand. In the written statements of the respondents it has been clarified that the supplementary/bi-annual candidates were eligible to this new College (i.e. Lahore Medical College) with additional disadvantage of the deduction of five marks for each attempt. The petitioners if despite this handicap on the part of the supplementary/bi-annual candidates still lag behind they should thank their stars and not blame the authorities."
9. This again is a case the facts of which are absolutely different from the proposition that I have before me. In that case, additional seats had been created and the contest was for those additional seats. In the present case, no additional seats had been created and the contest is for admission to those seats which existed on the day when the first advertisement was made. This case is therefore, clearly distinguishable from the matter before us.
10. Reliance has also been placed on Muhammad Iqbal Khan Niazi v. Vice. Chancellor, University of the Punjab etc. PLD 1979 SC 1. This case pertains to the rustication of a medical student and none of the dicta laid down in this decision seems to be attracted to the present case.
11. Shahnaz Maqbool v. Province of Sind and another PLD 1979 SC 32 was also referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In that case, petitioner passed her intermediate Examination in 1974 from Nawab Shah District. She applied for admission against a reserved quota of 29 seats for girls on 6-1-1976. She was called for an interview and at the interview was informed that her application could not be considered as the Principal and the District Magistrate who had to sign the certificates bad not done so. She, however, was ready with the original certificates which were duly signed and were produced. She also stated that she had made a request that the certificates be returned to her so that she could get them signed but the College authorities did not do that.
She was, however, told that she could apply for the 1976-77 Session but when she applied for admission to that Session she was informed that the rules had been changed and her application could not be entertained in view of this change in the rules. It was in these circumstances that the matter came up before the High Court which dismissed the writ petition and consequently their Lordships of the Supreme Court were hearing an appeal against the High Court order. The girl was denied admission because of change in the rules contained in the prospectus. She was entitled in 1974 to have been considered for admission on her merit but was not so considered but unfortunately she did not produce the necessary certificates and was given an assurance that she could apply in the next session. Their Lordships, therefore, held that : "However it is not necessary to discuss this aspect of the case further, because on the view taken by us in Muhammad Iqbal Khan Niazi's case it is clear that the new rule relied upon by the learned Advocate-General must be struck down as illegal to the extent to which it is retrospective."
It was on the basis of this consideration, therefore, which does not at all arise in the case before me that the judgment quoted above proceeded.
12. As the learned Advocate-General explained with his usual clarity, that admittedly the first invitation for applications for admission was published on the---' 18th of September, 1978, at a time when the petitioner in the present case had not even appeared at the Intermediate (Pre-medical)
Examination. She in fact sat at the examination which started on the 15th of October, 1978, and culminated on the 27th of November, 1978, that is to say, had the date fixed for submitting applications for admission not been extended, the petitioner would not have been in a position to apply for admission.
13. It has to be further taken note of that the first notification, referred to above, invited applications for admission in the First Year M. B., B. S. In Medical Colleges of Punjab "for the academic year 1978- 79" the applications were to be submitted by 2 p.m. On the 15th of October, 1978. When the date for applications for admission was extended, it was clearly stated in the notification that "In continuation of. The advertisement for the purpose mentioned above in the newspapers in their issue of 17th and 18th September, 1978.
In view of the late declaration of results by different Boards in other Provinces and representation of Punjab domiciled candidates in other Provinces, the last date for submission of applications has been extended to 30th December, 1978------------------------..Those who have already applied need not apply again. There is no change in the policy for admission."
14. The notification itself makes it clear that the reason for extension in the date was "late declaration of results by different Boards in other, provinces and representations of Punjab domiciled candidates in other Provinces." It is also clear that this advertisement was in continuation of the advertisement published on the 17th and 18th of September, 1978. It thus clearly stipulated that only those persons were to apply who were either eligible under the first notification or were persons who had appeared in the examinations conducted by Boards outside the Province of Punjab. Of course, they had to be students who were domiciled in the Punjab.
15. The petitioner did not fall in that category and in fact the result of the examination in which he had appeared was announced on the 27 of December, 1978. It is not that he is being deprived from admission to the Medical College, all that has happened is that he is not being allowed admission in a session which was to begin on a date when he had not even sat at the qualifying examination. He would, no doubt, be entitled to be considered for the next session.
16. There being no retrospectivity involved in the notification, there having been no change in the rule, the petitioner not being eligible for being considered for being admitted under the original notification, and the date having been extended only for certain categories, the petitioner cannot make a grievance out of it. It may be stated that the standard maintained in the annual examinations has always been conceded to be different from that which is maintained in the supplementary examinations and that is one reason why no merit awards are made at all by any University or Board to those who obtain the highest marks in the examination as a whole or any subjects thereof in the supplementary examination.th
17. Be that as it may. The fact remains that the petitioner is not entitled by any stretch of imagination to be considered for admission and the petition is, therefore, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no costs. Announced. Inform parties.