' RAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT KHAN ABBASI, J.--- Through this petition, the petitioner seeks direction to respondent/ University of Health Sciences for admission in M.B.B.S. Classes and he be allowed to continue his studies in Medical Profession and the merit list issued by the respondents is liable to be revised by adding the name of the petitioner at Sr. No,2 of the merit list.
2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of the instant petition are that the petitioner has passed his F. Sc.
Examination and appeared in entry test for his \admission in medical classes. The petitioner is domiciled of Lodhran District and according to the prospectus of University of Health Science, for underdeveloped Districts in Punjab, seats for M.B.B.S. Examination were allocated. According to the allocation, Lodhran District was allocated 7 seats. The criteria for the said seats were that candidate must have a domicile of the same District, from which he is applying; the condition precedent is duly fulfilled by the petitioner; that respondents have not complied with the order, dated 2-3-2009 whereby respondent No,3 was directed to accommodate the petitioner; that petitioner got 83.4% marks in the entry test conducted by the respondent/University.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has not complied with order, dated 2-3-2009 passed by this Court in which a direction was issued to the respondent to accommodate the petitioner in M.B.B.S. Class during the present session; that till today the respondent neither complied with the order, dated 2-3-2009 passed by this Court nor uptill now the petitioner has been admitted in the class; that the respondents are denying the admission to the petitioner just to deprive him. He has placed reliance on the case of Arif-ur-Rehman v. Govt. Of N.W.F.-P. Through Secretary Education and others (2005 SCM R 340) and judgment, dated 3-5-2005 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No,828 of 2005.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has no vested right to claim admission in the respondent/University on the basis of reserve quota and the petitioner could not be accommodated on the reserve quota as he did not have the requisite merits that his accommodation would amount to depriving the candidates, who have got their education from the same District; that the petitioner does not fulfil the requirements of the prospectus condition which is as follows:-- "The candidates must have a domicile of the same District areas, and must have completed his/her school and Higher Secondary Education (class one to twelve) from the same District areas."
5. I have, heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. The petitioner had not studied his higher secondary education from the same District. He has studied up to 5th Class in District Lodhran. Thereafter his father being Government Servant transferred to Muzaffargarh, which is also underdeveloped District like Lodhran. Purpose of reserve quota for the underdeveloped District is to provide opportunity of getting medical education not through open competition rather through selected competition among the similar student of the same District. According to the law laid down by the superior Courts, the condition laid down in the prospectus for admission in the medical colleges cannot be ignored and any violation thereof would be disastrous and shall lead to choas and arbitrariness. Reference in this respect may be made to case of Syed Faiz-ur-Rehman v. Principal, Sheikh Zayed Medical College, Rahimyar Khan and 4 others (2004 CLC 661). Further, according to the enunciation of law made in the case of Yasir Arfat's v. Vice Chancellor, Mehran University (2000 CLC 393), the prospectus of educational institutions, embodying the admission policy issued by the Government, is a complete code in itself and regulates the relationship between the student and the institution. In the case of Nayyar Abbas v. Government of Punjab (2004 MLD 876), grant of admission to a student, in the medical college by relaxation of rules laid down in the prospectus was depreciated by the Court. Prospectus or regulation is subject to change or alteration yearly basis for which student, shall be bound to obey the same. Reliance is placed on the cases of Shafique Ahmad and others v. The Province of Punjab (PLD 2004 SC 168), Ali Yousaf and other v. Chairman Academic Do i0 Medical College Karachi and other (2000 SCM R 1222). The University Authorities have powers to make their own regulations in order to achieve the high standard of education. While holding so, I am fortified by the dictum laid down the in case of Muhammad Ilyas v. Bahauldin Zakariya University, Multan and another (2005 SCM R 961), in which my lord Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, J has held as under:-- "Rules and regulations framed by the University Authorities for the purpose of conducting/regularizing its examination etc., were required to be interpreted by the University Authorities itself and Courts should avoid to interpret the same unless a case of grave injustice was made out, otherwise it would be difficult for the University administration to run its internal affairs relating to examination, etc."
' There is no vested right of the petitioner to ask the respondent/University for admission on the basis of reserve quota of District Lodhan. The first right for getting admission on the basis of reserve seat will be for the students, who are local and also have completed their initial education from that District. Admittedly the petitioner has got education from outside the District. I have full sympathy with the petitioner but the fact remains that respondent/ University is not in a position to increase the number of seats in the Medical College. It is the Government of Punjab, who can only increase or create the seats. The petitioner has not impleaded the Punjab Government as necessary party. Even he has not impleaded the student, who has already got admission on the reserve quota or on merit. The petitioner has not challenged those who have been admitted for the reserve quota, they cannot be disturbed at this stage. In this view of the matter, the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality on the part of the respondent/University.
7. The petitioner has completed his initial education from underdeveloped Districts. He should not suffer on account of posting of his father to another District in Muzaffargrah, which was also underdeveloped. The petitioner was totally dependent upon his parents. It was not possible for him to stay alone at the initial stage of Class 6th, when there was no hostel facility available in his school, but the fact remains that he has completed his entire education from the underdeveloped Districts. He stood at Sr. No,2 in the merit list prepared by the University. Hence his case is distinguishable from those students, who have completed their secondary education from the underdeveloped Districts. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances and being hardship case, respondent No,1 is directed to consider his case in the next year in accordance with the law, if the petitioner submit a fresh application for the admission.
8. For what has been discussed above and the reasons given in the paragraph No,6 of this judgment, the instant petition having no force is dismissed.