' MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, I--- 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 facts relevant for disposal of the petition as given in the petition are to the effect that the petitioner applied to the respondent University for admission to the Government Medical Colleges of the Punjab, through admission form No,2475, to read for the degree of M.B.,B.S. In the 2010-2011 session. The. Petitioner secured grade A+ in the Intermediate Examination held in the year 2010. In the Medical Entrance Test she secured 849 marks out of 1100. Her weighted aggregate marks for purposes of admission were calculated to be 82.1415 percent. The last student to be admitted in a medical college in the Punjab under the respondent University secured 81.3818 percent weighted aggregate marks which are less than the petitioner's marks. The petitioner has, however, been denied the chance of admission.
3. At the outset the learned counsel for the respondent University whilst referring to the parawise comments submits that the factum of the petitioner having attained 82.1455% weighted aggregate marks is not denied. He also does not deny that the last candidate who gained admission in the Medical College in the Punjab secured 81.3818% weighted aggregated marks. Submits that the difficulty of the petitioner lies in the fact that the provisions of the Prospectus of the respondent University for admission in the Government Medical/Dental Colleges of the Punjab for the session 2010-2011 require that at the time of submission of forms the candidates have to give their choice in order of preference for the Medical/Dental Colleges they seek to gain admission in. The said choice is to be made in the admission form and that choice is final. Refers to page 35 of the Prospectus wherein the admission process has been given. Clause (vi) of the procedure for submission of admission forms stipulates that: "Submission of Admission Forms vi. The candidates will give their preferences for the medical/dental colleges in one single Admission Form which once given shall be final and cannot be changed subsequently. There is no need to submit separate admission forms for medical and dental colleges." (Emphasis provided in the Prospectus).
' Also refers to the following warning contained in the admission forms:- "Very Important: Preferences once given shall be final and cannot be changed subsequently.
Think carefully before writing. Cutting or erasing is not allowed." (Emphasis provided in the Admission Form)
4. Contends that the petitioner was, therefore, required to abide by the above conditions and to give her choice regarding the Medical Colleges in order of preference. This condition is mandatory and neither any subsequent change is entertain able nor any exceptions are made. Further submits that the petitioner only chose 3 Medical colleges out of a possible total of 18 Medical Colleges. The petitioner even though having secured$2.1455% weighted aggregate marks did not make it on merit in the 3 Colleges she had chosen. Had she applied for admission to the other Colleges she was sure to have gained admission. Further submits that the petitioner made the conscious choice of not applying to any of the other Colleges. In support of his contention he has placed a photocopy of the petitioner's admission form on the record.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted with the above submits that the petitioner is the victim of the discriminatory and highhanded attitude of the respondent University.
The petitioner had made it on merit but had not been given admission. Submits that it is a fit case for interference in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
6. Further contends that the provisions being relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent University are penal in nature. In view thereof there should have been an explicit warning that candidates should give their preferences for all the Medical Colleges in the Punjab and upon their failure to do so the candidates shall be considered only for those Colleges for which they have shown their preference. No such instructions were available in the form, hence, the petitioner was misled. The petitioner is an orphan, therefore,' she could not have gone to study in institutions far away from her home town. The attitude of the respondent University's officials is bureaucratic. Their decisions in the matter are arbitrary and unfair. Also contends that interpretation of a penal clause has to be made beneficially in favour of the person in whose case it is being made. Prays for interference by appealing to the parental jurisdiction of this Court and submits that since there are seats available with the respondent University which have gone unfilled the respondent University be directed to accommodate the petitioner against the same.
7. In his reply the learned counsel for the respondent University reiterates that the terms and conditions of the Prospectus and/or the admission form are quite clear and they are mandatory in nature. Prospective candidates have to strictly abide by the same. Submits that there are no residual seats available with the respondent University. All the seats have been filled on merit.
Classes for the session 2010-2011 commenced in January, 2011. It is too late in the day to accommodate the petitioner even if a seat exists, which in any case is not so. If the petitioner were to be accommodated against the seats which have already been filled then at least one student shall be disturbed. No such student has been made a party to the petition nor the admission of any such student/candidate has been challenged in the petition in respect of whom discrimination is being alleged. An extra seat can be created, if at all, by the Government of the Punjab. It is not within the domain of the respondent University. In any event the Province of the Punjab has not been made a party to the petition; hence, no such direction can be given.
8. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and have also gone .Through the material brought on the record.
9. The respondent University's Prospectus as also the admission forms clearly stipulate that candidates should fill in the forms carefully and preferences once made shall be final and cannot be changed subsequently. These provisions as per the learned counsel for the respondent University are mandatory in nature. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since these are penal provisions they should have been more explicit or that if any interpretation of these provisions is to be made then it should be made beneficially in favour of the petitioner to my mind do not carry weight. The provisions as quoted hereinabove are quite clear and are indeed unequivocal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to show that any exception/relaxation has been made by the respondent University in respect of the above conditions or to establish a case of discrimination. It is a policy matter and the respondent University 'has to follow the policy enunciated by its Prospectus and this also has to be strictly adhered to by the candidates. If a candidate fails to make a choice this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction cannot take the role of a policy maker. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any discretionary relief for non-filling of the application form as per instructions given in the Prospectus and/or the form. Reliance in this regard is placed on an unreported judgment dated 10-12-2009 of a learned Division Bench of this Court passed in Writ Petition No,22356/2009 entitled "Maria Wazir v. Principal of U.H.S., Lahore, etc." and the judgment of a learned Division Bench of this Court reported as Shahid Sarwar v. Chairman, Admission Board/Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore (2005 YLR 344).
10. Even otherwise, it is settled law that normally in academic matters the University Authorities are considered to be the best judges to interpret the rules and regulations framed by the University Authorities. The Courts are to avoid interpreting the same unless a case of grave injustice is made out, otherwise it would become very difficult for the University Authorities to run their affairs.
Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgments reported as Muhammad Ryas v. Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan and another (2005 SCMR 961) and Memoona Noureen v. The V. C.
Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpindi (2011 CLC 230).
11. As to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are residual seats available and the petitioner should be accommodated against the same, I am afraid this contention fails for two reasons: firstly, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondent University, there are no residual seats available; and secondly, even if any seats are available or an extra seat is created [which in any event is not permissible under the law, reliance is placed on the judgment reported as Government of Punjab (Health Department) through Secretary Health, Lahore and another v. Naila Begum (PLD 1987 Lahore 336)] and the respondent University and/or indeed the Government of the Punjab are directed to give admission to the petitioner, then, as the current academic session began in January, 2011, the petitioner would be at least 6 months behind her class/course-mates and would definitely be at a disadvantage academically. This position the petitioner would herself not like to be in.
12. Insofar as the learned counsel for the petitioner's appeal for invoking the parental jurisdiction of this Court is concerned suffice it to say that notwithstanding the reasons given hereinabove if this Court were to interfere in the matter then floodgates would be opened and other candidates would also demand to change the choices made by them, thus, creating difficulties for the respondent University. Whilst this Court has all the sympathy with the petitioner, however, at the same time it cannot be ignored that the petitioner had made a conscious choice despite the clear cut warning contained in both the Prospectus and the admission form. The fact, therefore, remains that preferred choices engender costs, in this case the unfortunate denial of admission to the petitioner.
13. Under the circumstances, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.