' IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.---Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner, who is a student, seeks admission in BDS course for the academic session 2013-2014.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the University of Health Sciences, Lahore advertised admissions for the academic year 2013-2014 in the Department of Medical and Dental Institutes of Punjab. The petitioner applied and sat for the entry test. She secured 85.7606% marks as an aggregate according to the formula in the entry test. The first merit list was displayed on 24-12- 2013. The second merit list was displayed on 29-1-2014 and third merit list was displayed on 22-2- 2014. The petitioner did not make the merit in the said lists. Another up-gradation list was displayed on 28-3-2014 which contained names of 7 candidates. A dispute was raised by Principal Nishtar Institute of Dentistry who refused to accept the said students at that late stage. The dispute was ultimately resolved in August-2014. However, out of the 7 students, 4 did not deposit the prescribed fee. The petitioner claims that she was next in the merit list and was entitled to be admitted against the four vacant seats.
3. In view of the fact that admission was not offered to the petitioner, she approached the Secretary Health Department, Government of Punjab with an application to be granted admission.
The said application was marked to the Vice Chancellor, University of Health Sciences who declined the same on 9-9-2014 on the ground that academic session 2013-2014 had already been completed, the date for anuual examination had been announced and the admission process for the session 2014-2015 had also commenced.
4. The petitioner challenges, the order of the Vice-Chancellor on the ground that vacant seats had to be filled by the next candidates and as such the petitioner was entitled to be offered admission.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been discriminated against in so far as other similarly placed candidates were offered admission and allowed to deposit their dues in August-2014 while the petitioner was denied such treatment to which she was entitled under Article 4 of the Constitution. He further maintains that the delay from March-2014 to August- 2014 occurred on account of fault on the part of the University and the petitioner cannot be penalized for the same.
6. Parawise comments have been filed on behalf of respondent University in which the University has taken the stance that final up-gradation took place on 28-3-2014 which for all intents and purposes was the final merit list. Thereafter, there was neither delay nor failure on the part of the University. In fact the Principal, Nishtar Institute of Dentistry, Multan did not allow the students upgraded from the waiting list notified vide order dated 28-3-2014 to join the college. The University of. Health Sciences brought this matter to the notice of the Health Department, Government of Punjab vide letter dated 3-4-2014 to resolve the issue. The Secretary Health directed the Principal Nishtar Institute of Dentistry, Multan to admit students who had been granted admission on the basis of the upgradation list dated 28-3-2014 in BDS course as per recommendations of the Admission Board during a meeting held on 23-6-2014. It is submitted that on account of extraordinary situation arising out of the refusal on the part of the Principal, Nishtar Institute of Dentistry, Multan to allow the students to join classes, the respondent University sought approval of the Health Department to allow upgraded students to join said college even after the lapse, of a period of three months from start of the classes.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent University has emphasized the fact that according to the provisions of the prospectus for admission to Medical and Dental Colleges of Punjab, the up- gradation process can continue for three months after start of classes and not thereafter. It was only in the extraordinary circumstances narrated above that students, who were on the upgraded merit list prepared on 28-3-2014, were allowed to deposit their fee. In case an exception is made for the petitioner, it would open a Pandora's Box as the academic session 2013-2014 has already come to an end and even the date of examination has been announced. He further submits that the admission process for the academic session 2014-2015 has almost been completed and grant of admission to the petitioner at this stage would throw the entire process of admission into disarray.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
9. The record indicates that the University. Of Health Sciences displayed three merit lists on 24-12- 2013, 29-1-2014 and 22-2-2014, in which the petitioner did not meet the merit. The final up- gradation for dental colleges took place through a final merit list on 28-3-2014 in which some students were offered admission on the basis of being next on merit. The petitioner was not one of them. However, the Principal, Nishtar Institute of Dentistry, Multan did not allow the up-graded students from waiting list notified on 28-3-2014 to join the college. The matter was referred to the Government of Punjab. However, it took another five months for the issue to get resolved and the Government of Punjab directed the Principal, Nishtar Institute of Dentistry, Multan to admit the said students in BDS course. Accordingly, vide letter dated 7-8-2014 the Health Department allowed the University of Health Sciences to admit the students to Nishtar Institute of Dentistry, Multan.
10. The material question is whether any right had accrued to the petitioner in the final up- gradation list which was displayed on 28-3-2014, through which some students were granted admission. The answer to the question is in the negative in view of the fact that the petitioner did not make the merit even in the final list dated 28-3-2014. Therefore, the only right that accrued on 28-3-2014 was in favour of the candidates who were offered admission on the said date. The fact that there was delay on account of refusal on the part of the Principal, Nishtar Institute of Dentistry, Multan and the candidates were finally allowed to be admitted on 7-8-2014- is of no material consequence in view of the fact that a right in their favour had already accrued on 28-3-2014. The petitioner claims accrual of a right by reason of failure on the part of some of the students who had been offered admission on 28-3-2014 to join the college in August-2014 and deposit the fee.
However, if a right that is claimed to have accrued in favour of the petitioner after 7-8-2014 was to be enforced, it would violate provisions of the prospectus for admission into Medical and Dental Colleges of Punjab which provides that up-gradation process would continue for three months after start of the class. Such up-gradation process admittedly came to an end on 28-3-2014.
Granting admission to the petitioner at this stage would in essence mean that the up-gradation process has to continue indefinitely till all the seats are filled. This course of action would disturb the entire process of admissions and academic sessions and is not supported by any rule, regulation or provisions of the prospectus. Admittedly, the process of final up-gradation ended in accordance with the prospectus on 28-3-2014 and only those students who were offered admission in the final list had a right to be admitted.
11. The argument raised by learned counsel for the respondent University that finality has to be attached to the last list and thereafter no admission can be undertaken has substance. It the process of up-gradation and successive merit lists is allowed to continue indefinitely, it would result in induction of students at various stages of the academic sessions and would neither be practically possible nor, academically feasible. Therefore, the policy that only those students who were offered admission in the final up-gradation list will be granted admission and thereafter no further admissions would be offered has reason and logic behind it The rationale being that students cannot be inducted at different stages of the academic session after having missed classes for months on end or being accommodated against students in the next academic session which would violate the rights of the candidates who will apply for and appear for admission test in the next academic session.
12. It may be noted that students who are granted admission pursuant to second, third or upgraded merit list after commencement of the academic session miss classes for 2 to 3 months.
The University and the Vice Chancellor are best placed to judge how much of missed work can a student cover during the course of the academic session and at the same time meet the minimum requirement of class attendance to be able to sit for the final examination for that year. They have fixed that period to be 3 months as reflected in the prospectus. This Court cannot second guess and overrule the rationale and reasons for fixing the said period and record a finding that the said period should be more or less than 3 months. The case of students who were offered admission in the upgradation list cannot be used as basis for grant of admission to the petitioner on the ground that they were granted admission within the stipulated period of 3 months by the University.
However, on account of refusal on the part of the Principal Nishtar Institute of Dentistry, Multan, the actualization of their admission i.e, deposit of fee and joining of classes was delayed. Those were exceptional circumstances not attributable to the students who had been offered admission within the stipulated time. At the same time failure on the part of some of those who were offered admission does not constitute basis to make yet another merit list for reasons discussed above.
The learned counsel for University of Health Sciences has pointed out that even for those students who deposited their fees in September various complications would occur on account of the fact that they would not only be unable to cover the lost course work but may also be unable to meet the attendance requirements for eligibility to sit for the final examination. The situation of the petitioner is even worse in view of the fact that the academic session 2013-2014, in which she seeks admission, has already come to an end and the date of examination has already been announced. Consequently, she would have to be granted admission in the next academic session 2014-2015 which will be violative of the rules and regulations of the University.
13. I have also gone through the letter dated 9-9-2014 sent by the Vice Chancellor/Chairman Admission Board, University of Health Sciences in which he has declined admission to the petitioner by, stating that "the academic sessions 2013-2014 has already completed and the dates of annual examination of the session have been announced by the University. The Medical/Dental admission process for the session 2014-2015 has started since long. Entry Test has been conducted and the selection lists are going to be prepared soon. It is, therefore, not justified to make any fresh admission in the previous session at this stage". The decision of the Vice Chancellor/Chairman Admission Board cites valid and legally sustainable reasons for declining admission. I have not found the said reasons to be arbitrary, discriminatory or in any manner violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. Further, I am not convinced that there is any valid reason, justification or basis to interfere in the said decision in so far as in my humble opinion no legal or constitutional right had accrued in favour of the petitioner that may have been violated by the said decision.
14. In view of my finding that no right to admission accrued in favour of the petitioner when the final up-gradation took place on 28-3-2014 because she was not offered admission on the basis of the said list, I find that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. There is no provision for a further upgraded list after the final merit list has been prepared. Further, the academic session 2013-2014 already stands completed, the annual examination of the session has also taken place and admissions to the academic session 2014-2015 have also been completed. In these circumstances, it is not possible to direct that the petitioner be granted admission in the academic session 2013-2014.
15. As far as the question of discrimination is concerned, it is clear that the petitioner has not been discriminated against in so far as she was not on the same footing as the students who were offered admission pursuant to the final up-graded list dated 28-3-2014.
16. For reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in thislA petition. It is accordingly dismissed.