MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.--With the consent of the. Parties this petition is being treated as a Pacca matter and shall be decided on the basis of the available record.
2. The brief facts of the case as given in the petition are to the effect that the petitioner is a student who applied to respondent No,1 for admission in the Government Medical/ Dental Institutions of the Punjab to read for the M.B.,B.S. Degree in the Session 2010-11. The petitioner's application (Form No,761) was submitted to respondent No,1 on 3-11-2010. The petitioner applied to be considered against the seats reserved for disabled candidates and at the same time to be given additional 20 marks on account of being a Hafiz-e-Quran. The petitioner was, however, unable to obtain admission as he was declared to be not disabled, moreover, he was not considered at all as a Hafiz-e-Quran candidate.
3. Grievance has been made out that the petitioner's application for being considered as a disabled candidate was wrongly turned down whereas he was eligible not only to be treated as a disabled candidate but also to have been contemporaneously considered for the award of 20 additional marks being a Hafiz-e-Quran. The "moot point" in this respect as raised in para.9 of the petition reads:
(i) Whether a Disable Student is not eligible for 20-marks of Hifze-Quran?
(ii) And if a Disable Student enhanced his additional qualification by Hifz-e-Quran then he is not entitled for additional 20 marks as other normal candidates entitled.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that other candidates who secured an aggregate percentage less than the petitioner were selected against reserved seats for disabled candidates while the petitioner was not only deprived of the benefit of the reserved seats but was also riot considered for the additional 20 marks as a Hafize-Quran. The crux of the learned counsel's arguments is that the petitioner should have been given the extra credit for being a disabled student and in addition thereto he should have been given extra 20 marks reserved for Hafiz-e-Quran students. In this way the petitioner becomes eligible for admission but the petitioner was not given the opportunity. A case of discrimination has been made out and violation of Articles 2A, 4, 8 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been alleged.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent University whilst relying on the parawise comments filed on behalf of the respondents has controverted the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Submits that to be eligible to be considered for being considered as a disabled candidate the petitioner was required to be examined by the requisite Medical Board. In this respect refers to the Prospectus of the respondent University for admission to the 2010-2011 session, the relevant provisions whereof, as given in the parawise comments, are being reproduced hereunder for ease of reference:- "(ii) Seats for Disabled Students:
(a) The admission against these seats shall be carried out strictly on merit from amongst the candidates who applied for these seats and have appeared in the Entrance Test and passed F.Sc.
Pre-Medical or equivalent exam with a minimum of 60% marks.
(b) The candidate will be required to produce a certificate from a government certified specialist as per Appendix-V in the Admission Form.
(c) Such certificate will only make him/her eligible to apply against the reserved seats.
(d) A Medical Board constituted by the Chairman Admission Board will make final decision about the suitability of the candidate for admission against the reserved seats.
(e) The Medical Board shall consist of following committees each comprising 3 to 5 experts in the relevant field:
(i) Physical & Mental Disability Committee.
(ii) Visual Disability Committee.
(iii) Hearing Disability Committee.
(f) Disability for the purpose of admission to medical and dental institutions is defined as a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term, adverse effect on candidate's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities and puts him/her at disadvantage as compared to a normal person for acquiring education before entering a medical or dental institution. Here: * 'substantialmeans neither minor nor trivial. * 'long-termmeans that the effect of the impairment has lasted or is likely to last for at least 12 months or for the rest of the person's life. * 'normal day-to-day activitiesinclude mobility, manual dexterity, speech, hearing, seeing, understanding danger, and memory.
(g) The threshold of disability will be judged by the Medical Board, according to the structure criteria made by experts.
(h) The Merit List of disabled candidates shall be finalized on the basis of inter se merit.
(i) The disabled candidate selected by the Medical Board must have a valid domicile of the Punjab and should fulfil all other criteria for admission to medical/dental institutions of the province. a) The decision of the Medical Board shall be final. "
Further submits that the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board on 22-11-2010. The Medical Board found that the petitioner was not disabled. Refers to the findings of the Board as quoted in the parawise comments, which are being reproduced hereunder: S. No, SECTION RECOM M ENDATIONS
1. History * Loss of hearing in left ear with vomiting and Vertigo at the age of 12 years. * No hearing problem from Right ear.
2. Clinical ExaminationLeft ear Normal tympanic membrane and Right ear Normal tympanic membrane. R.T. + False negative, Weber later nalized to Right. Audio-Normal Right ear, SNHL, left ear.
3. Conclusion No hearing disability for the purpose of admission to medical college as hearing from Right ear is normal.
4. Recommendations Not disabled.
6. As to the petitioner's contention that his application for being considered as a Hafiz-e-Quran candidate was not entertained, the learned counsel for the respondent University submits that any candidate applying for admission on open merit or reserved seats can apply to be considered as a Hafiz-e-Quran candidate provided he appends a "Hifz-e-Quran" certificate from a Madrassa to his application. The petitioner did not file the requisite certificate along with his application, hence he was not considered on this basis. Even otherwise, the petitioner had to fulfil the criteria laid down in the Prospectus for award of 20 extra marks as a Hafiz-e-Quran candidate. Relies on the relevant provisions of the Prospectus, as given in the parawise comments, the same are being reproduced hereunder for ready reference:--- "Submission of Admission Forms
(XIII) Marks of Hifz-e-Quran
(a) Twenty (20) marks will be added to F.Sc. Or equivalent marks of a Muslim Hafiz-e-Quran subject to the verification of the same by a Committee comprising eminent Huffaz-e-Quran, constituted by the Chairman Admission Board.
(b) The Committee will conduct a structured test of the candidates who claim to be Huffaz-e- Quran.
(c) Only those candidates, who have secured 75 per cent or above weighted aggregate marks according to the formula given above, shall be invited for the test.
(d) Hifz-e-Quran certificate alone issued by any Madrassa is NOT acceptable for the award of twenty (20) marks.
(e) Hundred per cent (100%) proficiency in Hifz is required at the time of test by the candidate to attract the benefit of twenty (20) marks.
(f) As these Twenty (20) marks are to be added in F.Sc. Marks, therefore, the merit will be calculated by adding 70 per cent of Hifz-e-Quran Marks (i,e,, 14 marks) in the previous aggregate score of the successful candidate.
The decision of the Committee shall be final in this regard."
7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and I have also gone through the record.
8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was considered against the seats reserved for disabled candidates. After being examined by the prescribed Medical Board he was adjudged as not having met the criteria to qualify as a disabled candidate. Under the terms of the Prospectus the petitioner was left with no choice but to compete on open merit. The petitioner could have improved his chances as a candidate competing on open merit had he appended the requisite "Hifz-e-Quran" certificate from a Madrassa along with his application. The record reveals that he did not do so. As a consequence, the petitioner was not called for "Hifz-e-Quran" test. As per the Prospectus passing of this test with 100% proficiency is a prerequisite for award of 20 extra marks as a Hafiz-e-Quran candidate.
9. When asked as to why the petitioner did not append the "Hifz-e- Quran" certificate with his application the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents denied the petitioner the opportunity to file the certificate by maintaining that the petitioner could only apply against one special category. That is to say he could either apply against the seats reserved for disabled candidates or apply for being considered as a Hafiz-e-Quran.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents did not allow the petitioner to append the certificate to his application is, however, not borne out from the record. Be that as it may, even if the petitioner has appended the "Hifz-e-Quran" certificate to his application he could not have been considered as a Hafiz-e-Quran candidate because as per the criteria laid down in the Prospectus the petitioner was required to have secured at least 75% or above weighted aggregate marks to be eligible to be called for the "Hifz-e-Quran" test. Admittedly the petitioner had only secured 66.5727% weighted aggregate marks. The petitioner was, therefore, ineligible to be called for the test.
11. It is settled law that in matters of examinations and/or admissions to educational institutions the Authorities of the concerned institution are the sole judges of the criteria laid down by the institution in its prospectus and/or calendar. The Courts normally do not interfere in such 'like matters unless a case of grave injustice is made out, otherwise it would be difficult for the institution to run its affairs. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgments reported as Muhammad Ilyas v. Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan and another (2005 SCM R 961) and Memoona Noureen v. The V.C. Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpindi (2011 CLC 230) and the unreported judgments of a learned Division Beneh of this Court passed in Writ Petition No,22356 of 2009 entitled "Maria Wazir v. Principal of UHS, Lahore and others and Writ Petition No,1527 of 2010 entitled "Rahila Shabbir v. University of Health Sciences".
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to establish otherwise. No case is, therefore, made out for interference by exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
13. Under the circumstances, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.