1. ' DORAB PATEL, J.-This petition for leave turns on the proper construction the rules of the Bolan Medical College, Quetta for the selection of candidates against the seats reserved for doctors' children. The petitioner is the daughter of one Dr. Abdul Sami, who is employed in the Provincial Health Department and five of her brothers and sisters are studying in the Bolan Medical College.
2. As the petitioner passed the F. Sc. Examination of the Baluchistan University with high second class marks she applied for admission in the Bolan Medical College for the year 1979 against the seats reserved for the children of doctors. As Dr. Abdul Sami, who argued the petition for leave on the petitioner's behalf, placed great stress on rules 14 and 16 of the prospectus of the Bolan Medical College, it is necessary to refer to them. These rules read :- "14. The selection of candidates against the seats reserved for doctors' children shall be made by the Selection Committee on merit basis from amongst the eligible children of loca.1/domicile doctors of Baluchistan according to the allocation of seats to the following categories of doctors' children :- Category A. Children of doctors serving in the Bolan Medical College, Quetta ... ... ... ... 1 seat Category B. Children of doctors serving in the Provincial Health Department (excluding the doctors mentioned in Category A above) ... ... ... 1 seat Category C. Children of doctors other than those mentioned in Categories A and B above, with a minimum of 12 years stay in Baluchistan 1 seat Explanation.-
16. If any seat reserved for doctors' children falls vacant due to non-availability of an eligible candidate in any category, then the vacant seat shall be given to the candidates of other category of doctors children on merit basis...."
3. ' Although these rules are not a model of elegant drafting there is absolutely no ambiguity about them. Further, the admitted position appears to be that there was no candidate for category A under rule 14. Therefore, the seat which thus became vacant was available for candidates of Categories B and C, on a merit basis. And, according to Dr. Abdul Sami, the result was that two seats were available for the children of doctors serving in the provincial Health Department therefore as Dr. Abdul Sami is serving in the provincial Health Department, the petitioner became entitled, in the events that happened, to apply for admission under category B of rule 14, but respondents 4 and 5 had also applied for the seats under category B. Obviously, one of the three candidates had to be eliminated. But, although the petitioner was entitled to admission on a merit basis, because she had obtained far higher marks than respondents 4 and 5, she was refused admission by the Principal of the College, therefore, she filed a writ petition in the Baluchistan High Court and her prayer in the writ petition was that she was entitled to admission in the events that had happended.
4. ' The writ petition was opposed by the respondents inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner's claim was hit by rule 17 of the prospectus of the Bolan Medical College, as five brothers and sisters of the petitioner had admittedly obtained admission in the Bolan Medical College between 1975 and 1979. This rule reads :- "17. A doctor who has availed this facility of doctors' children reserved seats twice by getting his/her two children admitted against doctors' children reserved seats shall not be entitled to avail this privilege again."
5. ' The petitioner did not deny the allegation that five of her brothere and sisters had obtained admission in the Bolan Medical College, but her contention in the High Court, as before us, was that her claim was not hit by rule 17, because only one of her brothers and sisters, namely, Mst. Annul Mussawar had been admitted against the seates reserved for doctors' children, therefore, rule 17 was not bar to her claim.
6. ' The learned Judges of the High Court, who heard the writ petition were of the view that at least two of the children of Dr. Abdul Sami had obtained admission in the Bolan Medical College under rule 14, therefore, the learned Judges held that the petitioner's claim was hit by rule 17. Accordingly, by their judgment dated 8-7-1979, they dismissed the writ petition. Hence this petition for leave.
7. ' Dr. Abdul Sami submitted that the second respondent had erred in admitting the fifth respondent to the College and if this candidate was eliminated, the petitioner would automatically be entitled to admission. Because the learned Judges have held that the petitioner was not entitled to admission in view of rule 17, therefore, the only question before us is whether there is any error in the view thus taken by the learned Judges.
8. ' Dr. Abdul Sami criticised the language of rule 17 and relied on this Court's judgment in Mohammad Iqbal Khan Niazi v. Vice-Chancellor, University of Punjab, etc. (1). The judgment is of no relevance to the instant case, because there is no ambiguity whatever in rule 17. It is true, as we observed that the rule is not a model of elegant drafting. But as there is absolutely no ambiguity in the rule, it has to be given effect to, the more so, as it imposes a reasonable restriction on the privilege conferred on doctors.
9. ' Turning now to the judgment under appeal, the learned Judges have stated that the petitioner's sister Mst. Amtul Naseer Sami had applied for admission in 1975 against the seats reserved for doctors children, but had been admitted against a seat reserved for minorities. Further, according to the learned Judges, the petitioner's brothers, Abdul Rafiq Sami and Abdul Lateef Sami, had applied for admission in 1976 and in 1977 respectively against the seats reserved for doctors' children, but as they had been refused admission, both of them had filed writ petitions, and although Abdul Rafiq Sami's writ petition had been dismissed, he had been given a seat by the Governor of Baluchistan. Similarly, Abdul Lateef Sami's writ petition had, been dismissed by the High Court and although his petition for leave against the judgment of the High Court had also been dismissed, the Governor of Baluchistan had allowed him to continue his studies on compassionate grounds. In 1978, Mst. Amtul Salam Sami, a sister of the petitioner, had applied for admission against the seats reserved for doctors' children, and as she was unsuccessful, she filed a writ petition in the Baluchistan High Court which was allowed. Finally, in the same year another sister of the petitioner, Mst. Amtul Mussawar Sami had also successfully applied for the seats reserved for doctors' children. Therefore, the learned Judges were of the view that the petitioner's claim was hit ny rule 17.
10. ' Dr. Abdul Sami stated that his daughter Mst. Amtul Naseer Sami and 'his sons had not been admitted against the seats reserved for doctors' children, therefore, the fact that these three children had obtained admission was not relevant to the claim of the petitioner before us. As the learned Judges of the High Court appear to have agreed with this submission, it is not necessary for us to examine it. But the learned Judges of the High Court were of the view that the petitioner's claim was hit by rule 17, because her two sisters Mst. Amtul Salam Sami and Mst. Amtul Mussawer Sami had been admitted against the seats reserved for doctors' children and the only question before us is whether there is any error in this finding.
11. ' Dr. Abdul Sami conceded that his daughter, Mst. Amtul Mussawar Sami had been admitted against a seat under rule 14, but he submitted that Mst. Amtul Salam Sami had not deen admitted against a seat reserved under rule 14. {{FOOT NOTE}} (14 P D 1979 SC 1){{FOOT NOTE}} ' When we pointed out that Mst. Amtul Salam Sami's writ petition had been allowed by the Baluchistan High Court, he stated that althogh the Baluchistan High Court had directed that Mst.
12. Amtul Salam Sami should be admitted to the Bolan Medical College against a seat reserved for doctors' children, this order was not an order of admission, because the respondents in that writ petition had filed a petition for leave in this Court, and whilst admitting the petitioner, this Court had observed that Mst. Amtul Salam Sami's admission to the College was on a provisional basis, therefore, the submission was that Mst. Amtul Salam Sami's admission to the Medical College had not become final and was, therefore, no bar to a claim by her sister, the petitioner.
13. ' Although this Court granted leave to the respondents against the judgment of the High Court by which the learned Judges of the High Court had directed that Mst. Amtul Salam Sarni should be admitted under rule 14, the respondents subsequently sought permission to withdraw their petition for leave, therefore, it was dismissed as infructuous by this Court on 10'l-1979. And, the result of this order was that the interim order passed by this Court at the time of the admission of the petition for leave stood recalled automatically, therefore, the judgment of the High Court in favour of Mst.
14. Amtul Salam Sami has become final and is binding on the second respondent, and Dr. Abdul Sami's apprehension that the admission of his daughter Mst. Amtul Salam Sarni, under rule 14 was liable to cancellation is totally misconceived.
15. The reult of this discussion is that two other children of Dr. Abdul Sami, namely, Mst. Amtul Salam Sami and Mst. Amtul Mussawar have been admitted to the Bolan Medical College against seats reserved for doctors' children, therefore, the petitioner's claim is h it by the plain language of rule 17, and as we see no error whatever in the impugeed judgment the petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.