TARIQ JAVAID, J. --- The petitioner has assailed her refusal for admission in M.B.B.S. Classes for the academic year 2009-2010 on disabled quota. The petitioner appeared in her Intermediate Pre- Medical Examination in 2008 and applied for admission in. M.B.B.S. Class, after having passed her entry test by securing 75.7635/- marks. She was not admitted on disabled quota, as according to Medical Board disability suffered by her fell in category-A. Denial was assailed by filing writ petition No. 6861 of 2008 which was decided vide order dated 16.1.2009 with direction to Vice-Chancellor, University .Health Sciences to treat the, petition as representation under University Health Sciences Ordinance and its disposal in accordance with law. Consequently, Medical Board was re- constituted; however, despite her hectic efforts she could not be admitted. She without being dishearted made another attempt, once again appeared in the entry test for the year 2009-2010.
This time again she secured 77.4273 marks and yet, once again, she was not admitted. Allegedly her disability fell in category A, whereas students in category B though having lesser marks were given preference and they were admitted.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that some other students who were admitted, had disability of lesser degree as compared to the petitioner and they were placed in Category B whereas the petitioner was placed in Category A, hence she was illegally denied the admission in M.B.B.S. 2009-2010. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner had been placed in category 'A' with mala fide in law and colourable exercise of jurisdiction by the Medical Board. The instance of lqra Anjum was quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, no other student has been impleaded as respondent in this petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has already lost one academic year and due to the aforesaid discrimination she is being denied admission on disabled quota for the two successive years whereas another student having lesser disability has been admitted; that denial of admission to the petitioner is illegal and discriminatory.
3. The respondents have filed report and Para- wise comments wherein it is admitted that in the year 20082009 her application was entertained.
However, due to her disability having been placed in Category A she could not be admitted and the same is the position in the academic year 2009-2010. Three times the Medical Board was constituted, each and every time it affirmed the earlier opinion of the Board. It was maintained that the petitioner was not entitled for admission. It was also maintained that lqra Anjum had been rightly admitted and no discrimination has been meted out to the petitioner, hence the respondents prayed, for dismissal of this petition.
4. I have heard the submissions advanced by both the sides and seen the comparison of deficiency between the petitioner and lqra Anjum. The opinion of the Medical Board is re-produced below:--- Deficiency Bareeha Zainab lqra Anjum Affected part Left hand Polio Left Leg Polio.
Nature Post Polio Paralysis acquired after birthGross limp Function Near normal Power loss, present.
5. It is apparent from the above comparison that the petitioner had suffered left hand Polio whereas lqra Anjum had suffered left leg Polio. The nature of Polio also appears to be the same: However, deficiency has been made with regard to the functions of impaired Limb, that is, gross limp, suffered by lqra Anjum whereas in the case of petitioner it was found that post polio function of left hand was near normal. In both of the cases there is post polio paralysis. In case of lqra Anjum, it was opined that power loss is present but the opinion given by all the successive medical board do not display any marked difference between both the students. The deficiency has. Been found assessed in both cases, as near the normal, in case of the petitioner and power loss present in case of lqra Anjum. To my mind, both of the impressions convey almost the same thing, it is almost similar in nature. It appears to be different modes of expressing the same function. Near normal, meaning thereby it is not normal and power loss present also shows some weakness, an abnormality or in other words a disability as compared to a normal healthy person.
The disability in both of the cases appears to be similar in nature. However, placing them in different categories of disability, that is, 'A' in case of petitioner and 'B' in case of lqra Anjum appears to be an attempt to benefit lqra Anjum on the one hand and to deny admission to the petitioner on the other hand. Admittedly both of the students have suffered from Polio. Both are disabled. In Bareeha Zainab's case there are Post Polio Paralysis acquired after birth whereas in case of lqra Anjum there is Gross limp, meaning thereby that both of the persons are almost in the same category. Similarly with regard to function of limbs, in both the cases function is not normal but the deficiency distinguished by the Board does not appear to be of marked difference. Since lqra Anjum having similar disability has been admitted the petitioner ought to have also been admitted. Therefore, this petition is allowed and respondents are directed to admit the petitioner in M.B.B.S. Class. No order for costs.