' The petitioner seeks an order from this Court directing respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the revised F.Sc. Result of the petitioner issued on 3-2-2014 by respondent No,3 and to include her name in the merit list for admission to a medical college.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that petitioner passed F.Sc. Examination in the year 2013 in Pre-Medical Group from Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Gujranwala. A provisional result card was issued on 23-9-2013 showing her aggregate marks as 976. The petitioner was not satisfied with her result. She applied for rechecking of the papers of English and Chemistry.
3. In the meantime, respondent No,1 published an advertisement for admission to M.B.B.S/B.D.S in different medical/dental colleges of Punjab. The petitioner submitted her application on 26-10- 2013. Since the petitioner's aggregate was 85.91%, she was offered admission in the dental section of Punjab Medical College, Faisalabad according to the list issued by respondent No, 1 on 24-12- 2013. Subsequently on the basis of up-gradation she was admitted to De' Montmorency College of Dentistry at Lahore. It is stated that the petitioner joined the college and has been attending classes.
4. It appears that in consequence of rechecking, respondent No,3. Informed the petitioner that 2 marks had been added to her total marks, making her aggregate 978 Marks. On surrendering of her old result card, a revised result card was issued on 3-2-2014. As a result of addition of 02 marks, the percentage of the petitioner's score has increased to 85.9826%. She, therefore, claims revision of the merit list which the respondent has refused to do. Hence this petition.
5. The respondents were called upon to file para wise comments, which has been done.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a right to seek revision of the merit list by reason of increase in her aggregate marks. He maintains that the error in the provisional result card issued by respondent No,3 was not on account of any fault on her part. The mistake was directly attributable to respondent No,3 who acknowledged the same and corrected the result. Therefore she cannot be penalized for the error to which the petitioner was not a party.
6(sic). The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the petition. He submits that the respondents carry out onerous duty of ensuring proper and transparent processing of 3300 seats in public sector medical and dental colleges after processing approximately 41000 applications. The task involved in determination of merit for the 3300 seats on the basis of PMDC's formula is a large scale, highly sensitive, competitive and time consuming exercise. For its efficient, objective and timely completion (being crucial for timely commencement of classes), the admission policy stipulates inter alia the following limitations which are applicable to all candidates:-- "Revision of result or improvement of marks by any Board, after submission of Admission Form, shall not affect the merit list of admission for the current year in any way"
7. He, therefore, submits that any interference by this Court at this stage in the process necessitating revision of merit list would lead to disruption of the entire exercise, open a Pandora box and lead to multiple litigation, which would not be in the interest of process, the institution and most importantly the students and candidates. He submits that even otherwise, there is no likelihood of any substantial difference in the status of the petitioner, even if for the sake of arguments and without conceding, the petitioner's name was to be included in a revised merit list.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the record. The question requiring determination by this Court is whether, at this stage, this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, would interfere in this matter and issue the direction sought. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, our response to the question is in the negative for the following reasons:--
(a) The respondents carry out the function of ensuring proper and transparent admissions against 3300 seats in public sector medical and dental colleges. In this regard, approximately 41000 applications are processed on annual basis and a merit list is prepared in line with the formula set by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council ("PM&DC") to fill the said seats fairly, transparently and strictly in accordance with merit, This is a large scale, competitive and time consuming exercise.
The most important aspect of this exercise is that it is time bound and has to be completed within a specified time in order to enable classes to commence. With the above objective in mind, as a matter of policy, it has been decided at the relevant level that the marks mentioned in the admission forum shall be final and will not be revised, added, subtracted or modified for any reason, at least for that particular academic year. The rationale for that is not difficult to understand. As noted above, the exercise of receiving admission forms conducting entry tests, tabulating results and formulating merit within the specific time frame is an onerous and sensitive exercise and cannot be repeated over and over again. In case candidates are allowed to submit documents and seek revision of results at subsequent stage, it would be an unending exercise and would defeat the very purpose for which this exercise is undertaken. Therefore, it is neither fair nor expedient to second guess the policy and direct the respondents to make an exception in case of the petitioner. It may be noted that she is not precluded, if the rules permit from applying again for the next academic session when applications are sought for admission to medical/dental college in the next academic year.
(b) Perusal of the prospectus circulated by The University of Health Sciences, Lahore, a copy whereof was also available to the petitioner, indicates that it has specifically and categorically been stated in the prospectus that: - "Revision of result or improvement of marks by any Board after the submission of Admission Form shall not affect the merit list of admission for the current year in any way. In other words, revised marks certificate shall not be acceptable once the candidate has submitted his / her Admission Form."
(c) Our attention has also been drawn to the advertisement which was published by the respondent university inviting applications for medical / dental colleges. It is clearly and unambiguously stated in that advertisement that after submission of admission forms, change in marks obtained for F.Sc. For any reason will not be acceptable. The petitioner had submitted her forms after having accepted the terms and conditions of the prospectus. She cannot be heard at this stage to take a different position. As stated above, if an exception is made for the petitioner, a Pandoras box is likely to be opened and any number of candidates whose results may have been revised would approach the respondents for reconsideration of the matter and revision of the merit list, which would throw the entire system into disarray. This would not only derail the process and delay the commencement of classes but would also inevitably lead to a deluge of litigation by parties who may want to benefit from the said exception and those who may be affected by it.
(d) While we feel sympathetic to the petitioner as she may have suffered some grievance on account of an error on the part of the respondent No,3, we find that such error may not have damaged the carrier of the petitioner insofar as she has been admitted to one of the best dental colleges of Punjab namely De' Montmorency College of Dentistry, Lahore. Further, in case, she feels that addition of 2 marks may entitle her to admission in a medical college, she is not precluded from doing that by filing a fresh application for the next academic year. We may also observe that the learned counsel for the respondent university has asserted that there is no likelihood of the petitioner's position improving so considerably that she may be entitled to admission in a medical college by addition of 02 marks to her score. Even otherwise, it is settled law that individual grievances must give way to public good. By creating an exception and overriding the settled policy, which was within the knowledge of the petitioner, the entire process of admission would be disrupted and the merit list which has since been finalized would be thrown into disarray for which we do not find any lawful justification at this stage. The actions of the respondent university are supported by its prospectus as well as judgments of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.
(e) Two different Division Benches of this Court in identical matters have declined to interfere on the basis of revised result cards. Reference in this regard can usefully be made to judgment of this Court in W.P. No, 2400 of 2010 (Atiq Rasheed v. University of Health Sciences etc.) as well as W.P. No, 247 of 2014 (Muhammad Areef Haider v. Chairman Admission Board etc.) in which interference was declined. We find no justification to disagree with the view taken by 02 different Benches of this Court.
(f) In addition to the above, we find that this Court has also on repeated occasions declined to interfere in matters of university policies. In this regard, reference may be made to Ahmad Abdullah and 62 others v. Government of the Punjab and 3 others (PLD 2003 Lahore 752), where a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:-- Sitting in the Constitutional jurisdiction this Court would not like to enter into the policy making domain of the State or question the legislative wisdom. This is in line with the law laid down by the august Supreme Court in Muhammad lqbal Rafi v. The Province of Punjab, Lahore and others 1986 SCMR 680 and Prof Noor Muhammad Khan Marwat, Principal, Lakki Marwat College of Education and Research, Lakki Marwat v. Vice Chancellor, Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan and 2 others PLD 2001 Supreme Court 219.
' The learned Legal Advisor for the respondent/University has further referred to the judgment reported as Shafique Ahmed and others v. Government of Punjab and others (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 168) wherein the judgment of the Full Court reported as PLD 2003 Lahore 752 has been upheld.
' We respectfully follow the ratio of the afore-noted judgment.
9. For reasons recorded above, we do pot find any merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.