MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J. --- Precisely the facts are, that petitioner applied for admission in University of Health Sciences against the reserved , seats for disabled persons, she produced a disability certificate issued by the Chairman, Assessment Board, District Bahawalpur, before the Admission Board, but the respondent refused her admission on the ground that she did not fulfill the criteria of 20% disability.
2. The contention of learned counsel is that petitioner had applied for specific quota reserved for disable persons. The minimum percentage fixed by the respondents, for the eligibility of admission against seats reserved for disabled candidates was neither mentioned in the advertisement or admission Form, nor in the prospectus, so the same is against the law. Further contends that as name of the petitioner was missing in the merit list, she filed a representation, before the authority and the same has dismissed on 2-12-2010, merely on the ground that disability of the petitioner was found to be only 15%, as against the required percentage of 20%. According to the learned counsel such percentage could not be attached to the case of the petitioner, being not part of the advertisement, etc. The learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that petitioner was declared disabled by the Chairman, Assessment Board for Disabled Persons, District Bahawalpur, which document had to be considered by the respondent/University as a conclusive proof of disability. The learned counsel finally argued that the person appearing at Serial No,10 of the merit list (respondent No,6) D belonged to District Muzafarabad, as such was disentitled for admission, but he has also been accommodated.
3. The learned counsel appearing for respondent-University argued that it is very clearly mentioned in the Prospectus that disability for the purpose of admission to medical and dental institution 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. Further argued that Medical Board constituted for same purpose consisted of senior professors and the said Board had settled the criteria that a candidate having less than 20% of the disability will not' be eligible for admission on the reserve quota of disabled persons. In order to further strengthen his arguments learned counsel produced on record certain documents to establish that the candidates with 19% disability were not considered for admission, as compared to the petitioner who is only 15% disabled. With regard to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner about admission of respondent No,6, it has been replied that it was purely a typographical mistake, the said candidate had the domicile of Rawalpindi, but inadvertently it had been shown to be of Muzafarabad by the concerned officials of the University, which error has been rectified.
4. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No,6 has appended a copy of his client's domicile to establish that respondent No,6 belongs to Rawalpindi District, and contended that respondent No,6 was fully eligible for admission, therefore, no illegality has committed qua his admission.
5. I have considered the respective arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record with their assistance.
6. So far as the contention of learned counsel with regard to admission of a candidate (respondent No,6) from District Muzafarabad is concerned, the position has been clarified by learned counsel for the University as well as the counsel representing respondent No,6, that it was just a clerical error, in fact respondent No,6 hailed from District. Rawalpindi (in this respect attested copy of his domicile has been brought on the record), which error has subsequently been rectified by the University.
7. The petitioner had applied for admission against the reserved seats for disabled persons, being fully acquainted with the conditions/ regulations mentioned in the Prospectus. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent-University shall consider the disability certificate issued, by the Chairman, Assessm ent Board District Bahawalpur, is not of any avail to him, for the reason that the Prospectus of the respondent/ University at Page-28 under the heading RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF SEATS, against serial No,(ii) it has been specified:--- "(a)
(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) .........................................................................................................................
(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: 'substantial' means neither minor nor trivial. 'long-term' means 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 activities' include 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 'structured criteria made by experts.
(h)
(i) .
' The decision of the Medical Board shall be final."
8. On the touchstone of relevant regulations, reproduced above, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that against the disable seats only a Certificate issued by the District Assessment Board is relevant, has no force at all, firstly for the reason that according to the Prospectus the District Assessm ent Board will be only the purpose of eligibility for applying against such quota, and finally it has to be determined by the Medical Board constituted by the Chairman Admission Board and decision of this Board will be final: secondly, the petitioner herself had applied for admission in they presence of the above condition set down in the Prospectus, therefore, now the principle of "estopple" would apply to her case and now she cannot raise any objection.
9. As regards the objection of learned counsel for the petitioner that percentage fixed by the Medical Board is not applicable to her case as it was neither mentioned in the advertisement, in the Admission Form or in the Prospectus, the said objection of the learned counsel is not tenable, as according to clause (d), above the Medical Board constituted by the Chairman Admission Board is final authority to make the final decision about suitability of the candidate for admission against reserved seats. According to clause (g), the Medical Board is constituted under the Regulation mentioned in the Prospectus to fix the minimum disability for the purpose of admission in medical college by considering as to what level of disability will deprive a candidate to compete the other normal colleagues in carrying out day to day work and impediment faced by the disabled persons in getting their professional education, and this power has been rightly exercised by the Experts and the threshold of disability has been properly judged by the Medical Board, according to the structured criteria made by the Experts.
10. It has come on the record that even the candidates with 19% disability were not considered for admission, as compared to the petitioner who only carries 15% of disability, and the petitioner has not challenged her percentage of disability declared by the Medical Board and neither it is contended in the writ petition nor argued before the Court that members of the Board were inimical towards her, or that she had been refused admission on account of some mala fides or ulterior motives.
11. For what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view that in refusing admission to the petitioner, the concerned authorities in the respondent-University have neither committed any illegality, irregularity nor violated any of its terms and conditions, set down in the Prospectus. This writ petition, therefore, is dismissed.