' SHAH ABDUL RASHID KHAN, J.-This is a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan read with the Laws, (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977, whereby the petitioner, besides any other relief which this Court deems appropriate, seeks the issuance of direction to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for his admission, in preference to respondent No, 3, in the first year M.B., B.S.
2. In the Khyber Medical College, Peshawar one seat is reserved for students who are residents of Gadoon merged area of Mardan District. The petitioner Mohammad Anwar and Sher Rehman respondent No, 3, undisputedly belong to that category. When the question of admission of residents of Gadoon area was being considered, the petitioner as well as respondent No, 3 applied therefor. The petitioner holds a First Class B.Sc. Degree in Medical Technology from the University of Karachi and has passed F.Sc. (Pre-Medical Group) in second division. Respondent No, 3 has passed only F.Sc. (Pre-Medical Group) in second division. In F.Sc. Respondent No, 3 had obtained more marks than the petitioner and if the decision is to be made on the result of that examination then respondent No, 3 has a prior right over the petitioner. According to the 1978-79 prospectus of the Khyber Medical College the criteria for admission and the order of preference in selecting a candidate are laid down as under
(a) 1st preference ... To students who obtain in Inter-Science (Medical Group) Examination adjusted marks 600 and above.
(b) 2nd preference To students who obtain in B.Sc. Examination (with Inter-Science Medical Group in at least 2nd Division) adjusted marks 300 and above.
(c) 3rd preference ... To students who obtain in Inter-Science (Medical Group) Examination adjusted marks 450 and above.
(d) 4th preference ... To students who obtain in B.Sc. Examination (within Inter-Science Medical Group in at least 2nd Division) adjusted marks 225 and above.
' The petitioner's case is that be falls under 2nd preference whereas the respondent No, 3 falls under the 3rd preference and consequently he has a prior right of admission over respondent No, 3.
3. At the time of admission the question of qualification of the petitioner came under consideration of the Provincial Government in the Home and Tribal Affairs Department who were to make the selection. The Principal, Khybar Medical College, did not consider the B.Sc. Degree in Medical Technology at per with the B.Sc. Degree and, therefore, advised the Provincial Government accordingly. However, subsequently the petitioner obtained a letter from the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council according to which it was certified that the degree obtained by the petitioner was equivalent to B.Sc. And as such he was eligible for admission in the Medical College. The Provincial Government accordingly nominated him for admission in place of respondent No, 3 who had been previously recommended by them. The decision of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council was not acceptable to the. Principal of the Khyber Medical College who was of the view that the said Council had no jurisdiction to work out the equivalence of various qualifications. He suggested that the matter be referred to the Registrar of the Peshawar University for decision through "the concerned Committee". The matter was then considered by the Equivalence Committee of the University of Peshawar purporting to be acting in accordance with para. 2 of Part III of the 1978-79 Prospectus. The relevant part thereof is as under:- "Any examination of a foreign University which in scope and standard is found equivalent to the Intermediate Science Examination (Medical) of a Pakistan University/Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education as decided by the Equivalence Committee, University of Peshawar and Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar."
4. The Equivalence Committee opined that the degree in B.Sc. Medical Technology qualifies a candidate for admission to the 1st year Class of the M.B., B.S. At Khyber Medical College. This decision too, when came up before the Principal, was overruled and he insisted that respondent No, 3 was to be given admission in the college in preference to the petitioner. For this opinion he appears to have disregarded the recommendation of the Equivalence Committee on the ground that in the Prospectus of 1978-79 there was no mention of a B.Sc. In Medical Technology being eligible for admission to the first year M.B., B.S. He, however, added that in the following year a clause to that effect would be included making possible the admission of persons possessing such a qualification. We may point out that reference of the matter to the Equivalence Committee was wholly uncalled for inasmuch as the question of such a reference would arise only if the prospective candidate has passed an examination of a foreign University. In the present case the petitioner had not passed his B.Sc. Examination from any foreign University. He graduated from the University of Karachi in Pakistan and, therefore, the entire exercise of referring the matter to the Equivalence Committee was purposeless.
6. Coming again to the merits of the case, it is pertinent to note that in the Prospectus for the year 1975-76 B.Sc. Medical Technology in 1st Division was given second preference and the F.Sc. (Pre- Medical Group) Second Division was given third preference; the first preference being F.Sc. (Pre- Medical Group) First Division. The learned counsel for the petitioner has first of all contended that B.Sc. Medical Technology category has been inadvertently omitted in the Prospectus of 1978-79 and that in fact it was never the intention of the maker of the prospectus to exclude the students holding that degree. He pointed out that the subjects which are taught in B.Sc. Medical Technology are in the fact the subjects which are taught to the students of the Medical College in the first professional and that in fact the persons having B.Sc. Medical Technology degree are more qualified for admission into a Medical College than the degree-holders in any other subjects. No doubt the argument, on the face of it, appears to be plausible but since it has not been admitted either by the Government or by the Principal of the Khyber Medical College that the omission was accidental, no weight can be given to this contention. The makers of the prospectus are the best judges in respect of any omission and if they deny that there has been any omission of inadvertent nature, this Court cannot substitute its own opinion for their views.
7. The matter can, however, be disposed of on a plain reading of the Prospectus for the year 1978- 79 which is applicable to the admission in question. In para. 8 of Part II the preferences already mentioned are enumerated. The second preference is to the students who inter alia obtained in B.Sc. Examination adjusted marks 303 and above. B.Sc. Has not been defined which shows that the holder of B.Sc. Degree in any subjects comes within the second preference if his adjusted marks are more than 300. On this criteria, therefore, the petitioner who has passed Inter-Science Medical Group in A Second Division falls under the second preference whereas the respondent No, 3 who has passed (Inter-Science Medical Group) Examination with adjusted marks of over 450 comes under the third preference. On the bare reading of these preferences, enumerated in the prospectus, therefore, the petitioner has a prior right of admission over respondent No, 3.
8. The learned Advocate-General, who appeared for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent No, 3 contended that the omission of the qualification of B.Sc. (Medical Technology) in the Prospectus of 1978-79 when such a qualification was shown in the Prospectus of 1975-76 should persuade this Court to conclude that the B.Sc. In Medical Technology was not considered to be equivalent to B.Sc. In our view the question of interpretation of the aforesaid para. 8 does not arise inasmuch as the language is unambiguous and clear. The words written under section preference are "B.Sc. Examination". This means that any person who holds a B.Sc. Degree with any subjects falls under second preference. In fact separate mention of B.Sc. Medical Technology would have been superfluous: for 'B.Sc." in general terms includes that category as well.
When the language is plain it is not necessary to look for the rules of interpretation or contradiction.
We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has a prior right of admission in the Medical College over respondent No, 3 who had been admitted by the concerned authorities.
9, The learned counsel for respondent No, 3 has contended that if the petitioner is allowed admission in the College in preference to his client then respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to create an additional seat for the petitioner so as to obviate the necessity of unseating his client who has studied in the Khyber Medical College since the start of admission. In this respect he relied on the case of Abdul Sattar v. Government of Sind (1). We are afraid we cannot make such an order for that would amount to interference with the internal administration of the Khyber Medical College which this Court has neither jurisdiction nor intention to do. With great respect to the learned Judges we are unable to agree with the opinion expressed in the case relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent No,
3. In fact similar question had come up before the Supreme Court in the case of the Chairman, Selection Committee, Bolan Medical College, Quetta v. Miss Safia Hameed (2) and it observed that the High Court has no lawful authority under Article 199 of the Constitution in interfering with the internal management of the Medical College by the authorities and issue any such direction to them. It further observed that it was entirely for the College authorities to see how best to comply with the lawful directions issued by the High Court in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it and to provide a seat to the entitled applicant who has been illegally ignored. However, the Supreme Court made the following observations also 44 In the fitness of the circumstances the College authorities while making consequently changes in providing the seat in compliance with the order passed by the High Court should be guided by humane considerations not to do injustice or incalculable
(1) PLD 1978 Kar. 59 (2)1979 SCM R 529 ' wrong to the others for no fault on their part. There are mere guidelines for the benefit of the College authorities to follow in the exercise of the lawful discretion vested in them."
10. The result of the above discussion is that in accordance with the prospectus applicable in the case of admission to the M.B., B.S. First year the petitioner has, as already stated, prior right over respondent No, 3 and consequently we accept this petition and direct respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to admit him to the Khyber Medical College as a candidate from Gadoon merged area. As regards the respondent No, 3 the College authorities are themselves the best judges and if they are inclined to accommodate him and to allow him to continue the studies the order of this Court would not affect their discretion.
11. The parties shall bear their own costs.