' TARIQ JAVAID, J.---This order shall dispose of Writ Petition No,661 of 2010; Writ Petition No,777 of 2010; Writ Petition No,587 of 2010; Writ Petition No,707 of 2010; Writ Petition No,708 of 2010 and Writ Petition No,709 of 2010, as common question of law and facts are involved.
2. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners against refusal by the University of Health Sciences to admit them in M.B.B.S. Class for the academic year 2009-2010 on seats reserved for backward and under developed Districts.
3. The petitioners maintained that they had secured more marks than those students who have been admitted on reserved seats for under developed districts, and, as such, they were entitled to admission in M.B.B.S. For Sessions 2009-2010, whereas they have been denied Admission in M.B.B.S. And instead they have been admitted in B.D.S. Classes. The anomaly pointed out by the petitioners is that the private respondents in these petitions who secured lesser marks than the petitioners have been admitted in M.B.B.S. Classes, hence the petitioners have illegally been denied the admission. On the other hand, respondents have maintained that the petitioners did not qualify for admission according to the first merit list published for M.B.B.S. However, they were qualified for admission to B.D.S. For sessions 2009-2010. Their names appeared in the first merit list for BDS. The petitioners deposited fee and joined B.D.S. Classes. Now after having joined classes in BDS the petitioners could not claim admission in M.B.B.S. On reserved seats.
4. It is an admitted position that the petitioners had applied for admission in M.B.B.S./B.D.S. However, the first choice of the petitioners was M.B.B.S. It is admitted position that the petitioners applied for admission on general seats; if not successful they claimed admission on the seats reserved for under developed districts. It is also admitted that the private respondents who have been admitted in M.B.B.S. Classes on reserved seats for under-developed districts had lesser marks than the petitioners: It is also admitted position that once petitioners' names appeared in merit list for B.D.S., they were not given chance to wait for the merit list of the selected candidates on the seats reserved for under-developed districts. Soon after the publication of merit list the petitioners were directed to deposit the dues. The failure to deposit the dues would have certainly resulted into denial of admission, which hardly any candidate could afford, as such, admittedly there was no choice left with the petitioners. They had to get admissions in B.D.S.
5. The only point which needs to be determined is whether procedure adopted by the University of Health Sciences while granting admission was just and equitable or not? According to the learned counsel for the respondents the first merit list of M.B.B.S. And BDS classes was published simultaneously on 7-11-2009. According to the learned counsel for the respondents the first preference was given for M.B.B.S. And since the petitioners did not fall in the first merit list for M.B.B.S. Admission, their names were considered and they succeeded in the first merit list for B.D.S. Both of the merit lists were published simultaneously on 7-11-2009, dues were to be deposited by 14-11- 2009 and classes commenced from 16-11-2009. Surprisingly, after commencement of the classes, the second merit list for M.B.B.S. And B.D.S. Was published on 1-12-2009 and third merit list of M.B.B.S. And B.D.S. Students were published on 1-1-2010, whereas the list for the seats allocated for under developed districts was published on 8-1-2010. As the names of the petitioners appeared in first merit list of B.D.S. Classes on 7-11-2009, the petitioners had paid the fee and joined B.D.S. Classes.
According to the learned counsel for the respondents they were not considered for admission in M.B.B.S. On reserved seats. The only reason given for denial is that according to the scheme of admission, since the petitioner had joined B.D.S. Classes their names were taken out from list of M.B.B.S. Candidates, which appears to be illogical.
6. The procedure adopted by the respondent-University does not appear to be sound and foolproof. All of the petitioners had given their first choice of admission in M.B.B.S. Admittedly, they had secured better marks. It was imperative for the respondent to give option to the petitioners. It appears that instead of Health Sciences, quite illogically, resorted to exercise its own option by publishing their names in the first merit list for B.D.S. Which was published simultaneously with the first merit list for M.B.B.S. If the respondents choose to publish merit lists for admission in M.B.B.S which was their first choice but due to wrong policy of the respondents they have been denied admission. The scheme of admission as published by the respondent No,1 also does not appear to be flawless. The first merit list was published on 7th November 2009. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No,1, that the candidates who could not fall under first merit list for M.B.B.S. Were considered for first merit list of B.D.S. And since all of the petitioners qualified in the first merit list of B.D.S., they were offered the course, the petitioner paid their applications were past and closed and, thus, could not be considered in subsequent merit lists for reserved seats published by the No,1 for reserved seats published by respondent No,1 for M.B.B.S. Classes is devoid of any force.
7. Since the first choice of the petitioners was M.B.B.S., the respondent No,1 should have first determined the chances of their admission in M.B.B.S., on merit and if not possible, on the reserved seats. Their applications for B.D.S. Could only be considered if the petitioners could not be accommodated in M.B.B.S.
8. If respondent No,1 likes to publish the merit lists for M.B.B.S. And B.D.S. Simultaneously, then a provision should be made to allow a candidate a chance for admission on reserved seats for M.B.B.S. And B.D.S., otherwise, the respondent No,1 should first complete the admission for M.B.B.S. On general as well as reserved seats and thereafter admit the students in B.D.S. Class. An attempt to issue simultaneously lists for admission in M.B.B.S. And B.D.S. Without making provision for adjustment on reserved seats is not justifiable on the face of it. To ensure admission on merit the respondents may either complete the admission for M.B.B.S. On general as well as reserved seats and then start admission for B.D.S. Classes. On the other hand if the respondents want to make admissions in M.B.B.S. And B.D.S. Simultaneously, then they must make adjustments by maintaining a waiting list of students who are at the tail and who are likely to be admitted. But by no stretch of imagination the students having lesser percentage of marks can be preferred over students having better percentage of marks. The whole exercise is illegal on the face of it.
9. The argument of the respondent No,1 that after admission in B.D.S. The petitioners could not be considered for M.B.B.S. Is also fallacious in as much as that it has been pointed out that during last year students admitted in B.D.S. Were subsequently considered for admission in M.B.B.S.. It is not open for the respondents to decide choice of the petitioners. If petitioners qualified for admission on the merit on general seats or on reserved seats for admission in M.B.B.S. Classes, it is the petitioners' choice which has to be given preference and not the administrative convenience of the respondent. The procedure adopted by the respondents has resulted into mis-carriage of justice inasmuch as those students having lesser percentage in the marks have been admitted in M.B:B.S. And students having better percentage have been denied admission. The procedure adopted the respondent-University is illegal; therefore, the respondents are directed to admit the petitioners in M.B.B.S. Classes according to their choice and merit and not according to the whims of the respondent- University. It has also been noticed that the respondents, after issuance of first merit lists on 7-11-2009 required the candidates to deposit fees by 14-11-2009 and classes commenced from 16-11-2009. No satisfactory explanation is given for publication of second and third merit lists after commencement of classes. The respondents seem to be oblivious of the fact that normally the admissions must be completed before commencement of classes. The admissions office of the respondents needs to be apprised of the importance of completing admission before commencement of classes. The respondents are directed to be careful in future, complete the admission before commencement of classes. Since the petitioners have been denied admission due to the negligence/inefficiency of the respondent No,1, the respondents are directed to admit the petitioners in M.B.B.S.. The students admitted on reserved seats shall be given an option for admission in M.B.B.S. And B.D.S. If required, the respondent No,1 shall increase the seats in the respective colleges and accommodate the petitioners. With this direction these writ petitions are allowed with no order as to costs.