Ahsan All petitioner appeared in F. Sc. Examination in the Session 1980-81. Although he passed the examination but he did not 'do very well for the marks obtained by him were 469. Another 20 marks were added to his credit for his training in N.C.C. The total came to 489. The petitioner applied for admission in M. B., B. S. For the Session 1980-81 under the category of "Doctors' children" but he did not succeed. He was told that he could not be admitted in this category being at serial No. 11 in the merit list as only ten seats had been reserved for Doctors' children but Akif Munir was admitted in the aforesaid category. .
2. The petitioner felt aggrieved and filed this petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order. 1981 in which he has challenged the admission of respondent No. 3 on the ground that he did not qualify for admission in the aforesaid category.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the admission of respondent No. 3 was in violation of rule 4 of the Prospectus as his father did not possess the requisite qualification. In order to examine the contention raised by the learned counsel, I think it is necessary to examine, the relevant rule. In this connection, learned counsel referred to the Prospectus of the Government Medical Colleges in the Punjab for the Session 1980-81 and onwards.
The distribution of seats reserved for doctors' children is dealt with in paragraph 4 (i).Of the Prospectus. The relevant portion is as under :- "Ten seats shall be reserved. For the children of members of the medical staff of the Medical Colleges /Medical School, Post-graduate Medical Institutions and hospital affiliated to such Institutions in the . . Punjab..." (Underlining '' is mine), Learned counsel submitted that the father of the petitioner is a Senior Professor of Medicines in King Edward Medical College, Lahore. Total service comes to 28 years. For 15 years he served as Professor of Medicines, King Edward Medical College. He was Assistant Professor in the same College from March, 1959 to November, 1966. He bas been Lecturer in the Chest Diseases in Fatima Jinnah Medical College Lahore, from October, 1956 to March, 1959. He also served as Demonstrator in the Anatomy Department, K. E. M Cortege, Lahore from September 1952 to January, .1954.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that father of respondent No. 3 did not fulfil the pre-requisite of the aforesaid rule. It was contended that the mandatory requirement of rule 4 (i) was service of not less than 10 years in the medical-institutions and hospital "affiliated to such institutions in the Punjab" Learned counsel argued that the(Here in italics) Now service of respondent No. 3's father outside the Province of Punjab could not be taken into consideration nor the period during which he served as a House Surgeon,
4. Learned Assistant Advocate-General who appeared on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, admitted the status and service of petitioner's father. Nevertheless, he submitted that father of respondent No. 3 suffered from no disqualification and the respondent had been given preference because be secured more marks than the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 adopted the aforesaid argu--ment of the Assistant Advocate-General and in addition to that he raised certain preliminary objections which are that the petitioner had no locus standi to file this petition and that he was guilty of concealment because he did not disclose the marks of respondent No. 3. Learned counsel submit--ted that, according to the Prospectus, it is the total service which is to be taken into consideration and not continued service. Last of all, it was submitted that the period during which the father of respondent No. 3 served in erstwhile West Pakistan is also to be taken into consideration. He argued that the word Punjab is to be interpreted in a broad sense which would include erstwhile West Pakistan. He relied on lzharul Hassan Warsi v. Government of West Pakistan and others (PLD 1966 (W.P.) Kar. 628).
6. I have considered preliminary objections raised by the respondent No. 3 in the written statement.
They have no substance. The petitioner is an aggrieved person within Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. He is not guilty of concealment.. The question as to who obtained more marks is of no relevancy in this petition. Hence the objections are turned down.
7. The sole question for determination is the construction and application of rule 4 (i), referred to above. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the word in the Punjab, is to be construed in its ordinary day-to-day meaning and would mean the Province of Punjab alone, whereas the stand taken by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 is to the contrary. He wants me to interpret the word Punjab so as to include erstwhile West Pakistan in it. I would, therefore, first determine this issue and then examine- as to whether the service period of the, respondent's father falls short of ten years or not.
As already observed by me, the question of marks is of no importance in. This case. Neither the petitioner has been deprived of admission on this score nor respondent No. 3 has been given admission on this point. All that is required in this case is as to what is meant by `Punjab' and whether this word would extend to the extent of including erstwhile West Pakistan. The Prospectus in this case was issued for the Session 1980-81. The words used are "affiliated to such institutions in the Punjab'. It is an admitted principle of interpretation of Statutes that where the words are plain and there is no ambiguity, they have to be construed in their ordinary sense. "Critical refinements and subtle distinctions are to be avoided, and the obvious and popular meaning of the language should, as a general rule be followed". This is enunciated in the case of Haji Mian Muhammad and another v. Ghulam Mustafa (PLD 1973 SC 394) I don't think more case-law is to be cited on this point because this is an accepted principle and there art no two opinions about this. If the intention was to give benefit of this particular provision to those who had served in erstwhile West Pakistan, then there was no legal bar to say so. It could have been easily mentioned in the prospectus "affiliated to such institutions in the Punjab or erstwhile West Pakistan." It was all the more necessary to specifically mention "erstwhile West Pakistan" when the prospectus was for the Session 1980-8I and onwards. 1, therefore; don't think that I can extend the definition of `Punjab' so as to include erstwhile West Pakistan. It would be unfair and illegal to hold so. T4ere--fore, I am clear in my mind that the word `Punjab' occurring in this provision means the Province of Punjab.
The dictum in the case cited by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 is not applicable in this case.
Having held so, I have now to see whether the father of respondent No. 3 had put in the requisite number of years of service, For that matter, I would like to refer to annexure "A" attached with the written statement filed by respondent No. 3 which contains the details of. Service of Dr. Munir Akhtar which is as follows: -
1. House Surgeon ,16-7-54to15-7-55
3. Casualty Medical Officer, Nishtar21-1-57to26-7-57 Hospital, Multan.
4.Registrar Surgery, Liaqat Medical5-8-57to26-6-61 College Hospital. Hyderabad.
5. Casualty Medical Officer, Mayo16-1-62to 16-7-62 Hospital, Lahore.
6. Registrar, West . Surgical Ward,16-7-62to27-8-62 Mayo Hospital, Lahore.
7. O-S.D.,.Mayo Hospital. Lahore.28-8-62to21-1-65
8. Registrar, West Surgical Ward,21-1-65to8-9-65 Mayo Hospital, Lahore.
9. Surgeon Specialist ,for Plastic9-9-65to20-9-66 Surgery, C.M. Hospital, Lahore.
College Lahore.
11. Asst. Professor Surgery. Nishtar23-10-70to22-12-70 Medical College, Multan.
Out of this the period for which the father of respondent No. 3 he served as House Surgeonperiod of his posting as Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Rujhan ; the period of his service in Hyderabad and the period during which he served as Surgeon Specialist for Plastic Surgery C.M.H. Lahore, are to be excluded. Then his total period of service falls short of ten years.
I am, therefore, of the view .That the case of respondent No. 3 did not fall in the category-of "Doctors' children" and his admission as such was without lawful authority. The petitioner would, thus be at number c 10 in the list of Doctors' children hence he is entitled to the admission in this category.
The matter does not end her; and a difficult situation arises for both- the students. Respondent No. 3 Was admitted much earlier to the petitioner. He has been attending his classes and is a regular student: The petitioner was provisionally admitted to King Edward Medical College by my order, dated 17-6-1981. He, too, is a student and has been attending classes regularly: In a situation like this, it will be highly unfair to dislodge any one of them. The answer to this is provided in the two decided cases of Sind High 'Court: One is the case of Abdul Sattar v. Government of Sind through the Secretary (PLD 1978 Kar. 59) wherein it had been observed as under :-- " In our opinion, it will be highly unjust to deprive him even now from admission to the Medical College, on the plea of the admis--sions for the year 1975-76 being closed, when he has fully established that he was entitled to admission for that year."
(3) The upshot of the above discussion is that we allow this petition and direct that the petitioner be admitted to a Medical College, in Sind and in case there is no seat presently vacant in a Medical College, the Government should create an additional seat and accommodate the petitioner."
The other is the case of Farhat Ja6een v: Government of Sind and 3 others (PLD 1979 Kar. 172) wherein it had been held thus :-- - We must, however, observe that the fact cannot be lost sight of that Miss Rehana Saba had been wrongly denied admission for the previous academic year, she pursued the matter diligently and it was because of the equities in her favour' that she was as a special case given admission in the seat vacated by Miss- Safia Durrani, Miss Rehana Saba was admitted though she was disqualified and the inference to be drawn, therefrom is that the authorities concerned admitted this student by creating an additional seat, duly deserved by her, and, therefore, her admission will not be disturbed by reason of the admission of the petitioner Herein."
Both the Division Bench decisions. I respectfully follow the dictum laid down in these two cases.
Hence, the result is that the petitioner, who had been provisionally admitted to King Edward Medical College, Lahore, shall continue his studies in this -institution as a regular student in the category of Doctors' children. So far as respondent -No. 3 is concerned, he shall also continue with his studies but for him an additional seat shall be created by the Government. For the foregoing reasons this petition accepted. Parties to bear their own costs.