JUDGMENT TARIQ PARVEZ KHAN, C.J.- Through this single judgment, we propose to dispose of following writ petitions, namely, W.P. No. 2012/2005 Muhammad Zafran v. Government of N.W.F.P, and others, W.P. No. 2013/2005 Seema Shaheen v. Government of N.W.F.P, and others, VV.P. No. 2019/2005 (Madiha Iftikhar v. Government of N.W.F.P, and others) and W.P. No. 2049 of 2005 (Rabiha Nazir v. Government of N,W.F.P. And others) as the question of law which requires determination in the above- referred Constitutional petitions id identical/similar.
2. Before stating with the legal controversy involved in the case it is appropriate to give certain relevant facts.
3. For admission to Medical Colleges in the Province of North-West Frontier, 10 seats were reserved for female students who were daughters of Overseas Pakistanis in Girls Campus of Khyber Medical College, Peshawar. There are three other seats reserved for the children of Overseas Pakistanis (both male and female inclusive) in Khyber Medical College, Peshawar and Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad. Later three seats are to be filled on Federal Quota.
W.P. No. 2012 of 2005.
4. Petitioner Muhammad Zafran applied for admission in Khyber Medical College, Peshawar on the basis of his qualification for one of the three seats reserved for the children of Overseas Pakistanis in the Khyber Medical College, Peshawar and Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad. His application was forwarded, as required, by the Education Division of Overseas Pakistan is Foundation (OPF).
Pursuant to the application, petitioner was allottedI. D. No. 1893. He appeared in the entry test and scored 755 marks out of 800.
The name of the petitioner was placed at S. No. 4 of the Combined Merit List of the children of the Overseas Pakistanis.
On 20.10.2005, the petitioner received a letter from the Office of Joint Admission Committee of Medical Colleges pointing out deficiencies in his admission form I.e. Remittance Card and OPF Membership Card were not annexed therewith.
However, petitioner thereafter arranged to prepare such documents from the office of respondent No. 5 (wrongly recorded in the petition as respondent No. 4) whereafter petitioner appeared in the interview on 8th December, 2005 alongwith original deficient documents.
5. He could not be given admission because the documents pointed deficient with the application form were procured and filed after due date.
W.P. No. 2013 of 20Q5.
6. Seema Shaheen filed application for admission against one of the 10 seats allocated for Girls Campus for the daughters of Overseas. Pakistanis. Her application was similarly forwarded by the Education, Division of the OPF. She appeared in the entry test and scored 745 marks out of 800. She was therefore, placed at S. No. 8 of the Combined Merit List of the children of Overseas Pakistan and at S. No. 5 in the Merit List of Girls Students.
She however, received a letter dated 20.10.2005, wherein deficiency was, pointed out in her application form i. e. It was not accompanied by Remittance Card of her father and OPF Membership Card.
However, she appeared in the interview on 8th December, 2005 but was refused admission on the ground that neither Remittance Card nor OPF Membership Card were filed with the application as required by the Prospectus.
W.P. No. 2019 of 20Q5.
7. Petitioner Mediha Iftikhar similarly applied as writ petitioner in W.P. No. 2013/2005. She appeared in the interview and scored 719 marks out of 800 in the entry test and obtained 12th position on the Combined Merit List and 7th position on the merit list for the Girls Students for seats reserved for Overseas Pakistanis. She was also served with a letter dated 20.10.2005 pointing out deficiencies in her admission from i.e. The form was not accompanied with the Remittance Card and OPF Membership Card of her father.
On 8th December, 2005 she appeared for interview but was refused for non-compliance of requirement of Prospectus i.e. Deficiency of two Cards mentioned above.
W.P. No. 2049 of 20Q5.
8. Petitioner Rabiha Nazir applied for reserved spats from the quota wo Overseas Pakistanis comprising of 10 seats reserved for daughters of Overseas Pakistan of N.W.F.P, and additional three seats out of Federal category both the male and female for Overseas Pakistanis of N.W.F.P. She was selected throughout including the interview and on 8th December, 2005, she was directed to deposit the admission fee but on the date fixed she was refused admission without assigning her any reason.
9. We asked for the comments of the respondents to know that on what grounds she was refused admission, it was replied that according to the prospectus for the Session 2005-2006, the date for submission of application forms for admission against all the seats, was from 11.10.2005 to 22.10.2005. The petitioner was required to submit her application alongwith relevant documents as mentioned in the Prospectus. Having failed to file or produce the required documents within the stipulated time i.e. Before 21.10.2005, she was refused admission. The deficiency in her case was that OPF Membership Card produced was issued on 8.9.2000 which was valid for 5 years and has expired on 8.9.2005.
10. In case of Muhammad Zafran, it appears that OPF Membership Card was issued to his father, namely, Munawar Khan on 29.10.2005 whereas last date of filing application was 22.10.2005 (see Annexure-A with the writ petition of Muhammad Zafran).
11. In case of Seema Shaheen, same is the position as OPF Membership Card issued in the name of her father, namely Dr. Muhammad Naeem was issued on 29.10.2005 i.e. Beyond the last date for filing of application forms.
12. In case of Madiha Iftikhar, from the documents, attached with writ petition Annexure-D and Annexure-K, it stands proved that by 22.10.2005 neither OPF Membership Card nor Remittance Card were filed with the application forms because Annexure-D is letter dated 15.11.2005 by deputy Director, Education Division, Overseas Pakistanis Foundation addressed to Chairperson, Joint Admission Committee of Khyber Medical College, Peshawar, It was followed by an application by father of the petitioner dated 8.12.2005 (Annexure-K) which again shows that the required documents were procured and filed later on.
13. In case of Rabiha Nazir we checked the original record. The photo-copy of OPF Membership Card filed with the writ petition shows the issuance. Date as 29.8.2005, but one tiled with the application form had already expired. If a valid OPF Membership Card was in possession of the petitioner, we fail to understand as to why she filed expired card with her application form.
14. Above is the factual position of the four petitioners. The question for determination now is that not withstanding the fact that each of the petitioners has applied for admission against reserved seats for Overseas Pakistanis but at the time of filing of application forms, there were deficiencies in their application forms which were though removed but after due date.
15. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that by the fact that each of the petitioners was asked to fulfil the deficiencies by 21.1 1.2005, therefore, once they have fulfilled. The deficiencies before the date fixed and completed all the requisite documents within the time having been extended for them, they had earned vested right to be admitted to the medical colleges as their merit position was higher than the girls/boys admitted against the reserved seats.
16. It is next argued that once it is held out to the petitioners that they are to remove the deficiencies and they were called for the interview then respondents could not have withdrawn decisive steps taken by the petitioners towards their admission.
It is argued that if any of the respondents having violated the time schedule by allowing the petitioners to file required documents, for their failure, the petitioners should not suffer.
17. Learned counsel argued that instead of going by technicalities, rule of merit should have prevailed because each of the petitioners has scored more marks than the admitted students.
18. It is argued that even if in some cases, the date of issuance of OPF Membership Card was beyond the date for filing application forms, it was not controverted that parents of the petitioners were Overseas Pakistanis and were entitled to ask for OPF Membership Cards. If they could not manage to have it before filing of application forms, it does not mean that they were not Overseas Pakistanis because status as such has been acquired by them, only deficiency was that they were not equipped with OPF Membership Cards which was a mere formality.
19. Learned counsel representing the respondent/Joint Admission Committee argued that for each academic year, Prospectus with application Forms containing required qualification and eligibility is published by the Joint Admission Committee with the approval of the Provincial Government.
States that Prospectus prepared by the Provincial Government for a particular year cannot be altered/amended or any change brought therein by any authority other than the Provincial Government. He submits that complete schedule is given for each year commencing from the date on which prospectus would be issued, the date until which the application forms can be filed, the date of interview, entry test, the scrutiny, the publication of provisional, list of the candidates qualifying. He submits that the Schedule if not followed strictly, would frustrate the age limit as required in the Prospectus.
He referred to page 17 of the Prospectus for the Session 2005-2006 whereunder maximum age limit of the candidate is 25 years and that shall be reckoned on the closing date of the receipt of application forms for admission.
20. His contention is that when on or before due date for filing of application forms there was any deficiency, such forms shall be treated as incomplete and where forms are incomplete, they are liable tot ejection.
He referred to page 21, heading "warnings" para 2 of the Prospectus which states "Incomplete application forms will be rejected".
States that the above warping followed by rejection of incomplete application forms is mandatory as it is a penalty.
21. Mr. Abdul Latif Afridi and Mr. Yahya Afridi, Advocates, appearing though on notice for some of the respondents and Mr. Waseemuddin Khattak, Advocate, appearing for Joint Admission Committee and others have taken notice of these petitions and we have heard these petitions after they accepted the notice of these writ petitions.
22. To regulate admission of Professional Colleges including Medical Colleges all over the country and in our province too, prospectus for the session is published and issued. For the Session in question, we have before us prospectus for N.W.F.P. Medical/Dental Colleges, Session 2005-2006. In its first Chapter appearing at page 8 is the Admission Policy., General Policy and Important Notes, It states that the prospectus is approved by the Government of N.W.F.P, and that any addition or deletion on account of typographical mistake is permissible, by the Government but amendment during the admission process will not be made.
Under the same Heading para 5 contains that all the candidates and students are required to read, know and abide by the Rules and Regulations mentioned in this prospectus. Ignorance of Rules and Regulations is no excuse.
23. Page 11 of the Prospectus describes eligibility for applying against different categories of seats followed by different headings, like Open Merit Seats, N.W.F.P.' Backward Areas seats etc. At page 13 Para VI, seats are allocated for the daughters of Overseas Pakistanis of N.W.F.P./F.A.T.A. Origin at Girls Campus KMC, Hayatabad.
24. Here we may clarify, that for Overseas Pakistanis of N.W.F.P., there are two types of seats, total 13 in number, out of which 10 are reserved on the Provincial quota basis for admission to MBBS Girls Campus while remaining three seats are reserved on Federal Quota basis for Overseas Pakistanis of N.W.F.P, both for male and female.
25. Under the Prospectus, for candidates applying for either of the seats mentioned above, candidate's father/mother must have-a valid OPF Membership Card and Foreign Exchange Remittance Card.
26. Further requirement is given at page 14 of the Prospectus under para IV i.e. Candidates seeking admission against the seats reserved for the children of Overseas Pakistanis of N.W.F.P, domicile must fulfil the requirement laid down by Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Labour and Manpower.
27. It is provided at page 19 Para VI that candidates seeking admission for reserved seats for Overseas Pakistanis In the N.W.F.P: Medical and Dental Colleges, shall apply to the Ministry of Labour, Manpower and Overseas Pakistanis.
28. At page 20 documents required with application forms have been given. Besides others, at S. No. X it is required that a copy of parent's valid OPF Membership Card and Foreign Exchange Remittance Card in case of candidate applying against Overseas Pakistan's Seats be filed. This is followed by page 21 heading "Warnings", sub para 2 of which states that incomplete application forms will be rejected.
29. We go back to page 11 of the Prospectus describing eligibility for applying against different categories of seats where para 2 contains that "Selection under each category of seat shall be done on the basis of inter se merit amongst those who have applied and are eligible for admission". Its para 3 again warns the candidates that while applying for any category of seat, they must study the admission policy very carefully and then apply accordingly.
30. In view of different provisions of Prospectus as we have highlighted above, it is crystal clear that Prospectus and the Schedule given thereunder are approved by the Provincial Government.
31. Any authority other than the Provincial Government cannot go beyond the Schedule and even if at any stage any persons/authority has asked any of the candidates to fulfil the deficiency as were pointed out in case of the present petitioners, such extension of time would be against the schedule as given in the Prospectus and Prospectus shall prevail against any concession.
32. Where Prospectus itself provides that incomplete application forms are liable to rejection, it shall be taken as such and it shall be deemed that if any of the candidates on or before the date fixed for filing of application forms, has not filed complete forms, his application form was and should be taken as rejected as incomplete.
33. The principle of locus Poenitentiae that some authorities have held out to the petitioners that they may cover up the deficiencies, would not apply to the case of the petitioners but instead it is again to the benefit of the already admitted students. The principle of locus Poenitentiae would have been applicable if to cover up the delay and deficiency, it was held out to the petitioners by the Government and not by any other authority.
34. As we have given the deficiencies in the opening paragraphs of this consolidated judgment qua each of the petitioners and as their application forms were incomplete by the due date/last date i.e. 22.10.2005, they could neither have been called for interview nor admitted. We do not find any force in these petitions which are accordingly dismissed.