1. ' AGIIA ALI RYDER, C. J.-The circumstances in which this petition has been filed, succinctly stated, are as follows:- ' The M.B.B.S. Classes of the various medical colleges of Sind were co start from April, 1979.
2. According to clause 3 of the Fleet Order, dealing with the reservation of seats for the children of the Naval Personnel in medical/engineering/agricultural colleges, etc., candidates were to be considered for place in accordance with the following priorities, and the one which needs mention is sub-clause (d) thereof: "(d). Children of Naval Personnel, who took part in Indo-Pak Wars of 1965 and 1971 and were awarded `Sitara-i-Harb'.
3. ' These were seven in all, but the rest are not material. The only other clause, which needs mention is clause 4, which reads as under; ' Within each category the order of merit is to be determined by the number of marks obtained in the appropriate examination for relevant college institution."
4. ' The petitioner and her sister, Mst. Asifa Yaqoob, had applied for admission in any of the medical colleges from this category as their father was the recipient of two awards of `Sitara-i-Harb' in the Indo-Pakistan Wars of 1965 and also 1971. In this context, it might be Mentioned that , their application had been forwarded by the respondent No, 3, who is the Commanding Officers of P. N.
5. S. `MEHRAN', after secondment from the Air Force, where he enjoyed the rank of an Air Commodore.
6. However, in the month of June, 1979, the petitioner came to know that admission had been granted in Dow Medical College, Karachi, to the respondent No, 6 against the seat reserved for the Naval Personnel Children. During the pendency of the proceedings, it further came to her knowledge that the respondent No, 7, who is the daughter of the respondent No, 3, had also secured admission in Sind Medical College, Karachi, from the same category. It is, therefore, alleged that the respondent No, 7 was not eligible for admission as his father had obtained the award of `Sitara-i-Harb' only in 1971 War, as against the two as required in the Fleet Order. The admission of the respondent No, 7 is challenged on the ground that her father was originally from the Air Force, and was working in the Navy only as secondment. It is further urged that she should not have been recommended for admission, in view of the fact that her father himself had recommended the case of the petitioner, and therefore it was against fairplay.
7. ' Sub-clause (d) of clause 3 has been reproduced earlier. The question for consideration is as to whether the word "and" is to be read conjunctively, or disjunctively. Mr. S. Nasiruddin, learned counsel for the petitioner, maintained that it is to be done conjunctively, and therefore the children of only those officers and personnel were qualified, who had earned the decoration of `Sitara-i- Harb' in both the Wars, Mr. Shah Jamil Alam, learned Deputy Attorney-General, referred us to Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes (page 232, 12th Edn.), wherein the author says as under: "In ordinary usage, 'and' is conjunctive and 'or' disjunctive. But to carry out the intention of the Legislature it may be necessary to read `and' in place of the conjunction 'or', and vice versa.
8. ' The Disabled Soldiers Act, 1901, for example, in speaking of property to be employed for the maintenance of 'sick and maimed soldiers', referred to soldiers who were either sick or maimed, and not only to those who were both."
9. ' Mr. S. Nasiruddin, learned counsel for the petitioner, has referred us to two cases, one from Lahore and the other from Karachi, namely, P. D. H. Laboratories Employees & Workers' Union v. Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Government of West Pakistan, Lahore (1). And Hatim Ali v. Mst.
10. Zulekhabibi and others (2). None of the two Judgments prohibits the word "and" to be substituted for the word "or". What has been emphasised is that it has to be seen from the context of the word as to how it furthers the intention of the Legislature. To our mind, the word "and" here has to be read disjunctively, because otherwise it will disqualify the children of the personnel who got the award of `Sitara-i-Harb' in 1965 and retired before the next War of 1971 or/and personnel who joined service and covered themselves with glory in 1971 war and had not joined the service earlier. Admittedly, the priorities have been given due care, because the respondent No, 7 had obtained first division, while the petitioner had obtained nothing more than second division. To our mind, therefore, the admission of the respondent No, 7 is not open to any exception.
11. ' It is not denied that the respondent No, 3 had been seconded to the Navy as early as 6th of December, 1968, and continues there even now being in command of P. N. S. "MEHRAN".
12. Secondment from one wing of the Armed Services to another is not an unusual thing. According to section 2-A of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, "The Federal Government may by order in writing direct that any person referred to in clause (a), clause (b) or clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 2 shall, under such conditions as may be laid
(1) PLD 1973 Lab. 256 (2) PLD 1964 Kar. 399 down by regulations be seconded for service with the Pakistan Navy or the Pakistan Air Force".
13. There is also a note of the decisions of a meeting by the Ministry of Defence, dated the 8th of May, 1979, in which it was resolved that for the purposes of the admission of the children in various educational institutions, persons on secondment from one service to another service will be considered against the quota of the borrowing service. The respondent No, 3 had been attached to the Navy from 1968 up to date, which makes a period of 11 years, and, according to the decision, his children are to be considered only against the quota of the Navy. The respondent No, 7 is again a first divisionary. Under the circumstances her admission to the Sind Medical College against the Naval quota cannot be open to any objection. The insinuation against the respondent No, 3, that he got his daughter admitted, in spite of the fact that he had recommended the cases of the petitioner and her sister, respondent No, 8, is only to be deprecated. It only shows the fair mindedness of the respondent No, 3, that he recommended them in spite of the fact that his daughter was also a candidate against the same quota.
14. ' The admissions of the respondents Nos, 6 and 7 cannot be said to be unlawful. We will, therefore, dismiss the petition. There will, however, be no order as to costs.