' IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, J.---Through the instant petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, in W. P.
No.13935/2013, whereby the said writ petition has been accepted and the petitioners have been directed to arrange admission of respondent No. 1 against the seat reserved for disabled student for the Session 2013-14.
2. The succinct facts required for the determination of this petition are that the petitioners through public notice invited applications for admission to M.B.B.S programme in Public Sector Medical and Dental Institutions of the Punjab for the Session 2013-14. The said public notice also sought applications from disabled candidates. The respondent No. 1 submitted an application seeking admission on a seat reserved for disabled candidates along with a certificate issued by a Specialist working in a Government hospital describing the nature of his disability. The said application was duly processed by the petitioners and thereafter he was referred to Medical Board constituted by the Chairman Admission Board for medical examination. The said constituted Medical Board came to the conclusion that he was not eligible for admission against the seat of physically disabled as a result of which he was declined admission on the said seat for the Session 2013-14 and the same was duly depicted in the list of unselected candidates against seats reserved for disabled candidates. In view of rejection of admission of respondent No. 1 on disabled student seat, he approached the High Court by filing a writ petition, which had been accepted vide impugned order. Feeling aggrieved of the same, the petitioners have now approached this Court by filing the instant petition wherein notice was issued to the respondents vide order dated 12.06.2014.
3. Mr. Rasaal Hasan Syed, learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently argued that the High Court has been completely oblivion and has totally ignored the criteria laid down for admission on seats reserved for disabled candidates as it has erred in holding that the rules and regulations of the University of Health Sciences, as stated in the prospectus, amounts to duplication in the presence of certificate issued by a Specialist working in the Government hospital, which had been submitted by respondent No. 1 at the time of submission of his admission form. The High Court has wrongly held that it would amount to reassessment of disability by subsequently constituting a Medical Board by the Chairman Admission Board. In view of the same, the High Court held that it amounted to creating hurdles in the way of respondent No. 1 in getting admission on reserved seat for disabled candidates and in this regard learned counsel for the petitioners adverted our attention to the rules and regulations for various categories of seats duly published in the prospectus and while emphasizing upon clause-ii)c. Asserted that final determination of eligibility of a candidate on a reserved seat for disabled candidates was to be made by the Medical Board constituted by the Chairman Admission Board, as such the Chairman Admission Board constituted the Medical Board which duly examined respondent No. 1 and held that his disability was not of a category which would make him eligible for admission on seat reserved for disabled candidates.
He further asserted that it was categorically stated in the rules and regulations that the decision of the Medical Board shall be final in this regard, as such the High Court could not have interfered in the rules and regulations of the University. It was further asserted that the petitioners in a transparent manner have conducted the admissions. The candidates were firstly selected on open merit. There were 19 reserved seats for disabled candidates for M.B.B.S and one seat for BDS, which had duly been filled according to rules and regulations. Moreover, the learned counsel argued that there is a consistent view of the superior Courts that the rules, regulations and criteria set out by the University authorities are not be interfered with by the Courts, therefore, the High Court has erred in holding that clauses-ii)b. & c. Of the rules and regulations are inter-contradictory.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Noor M. Khan Chandia, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, vehemently supported the impugned order and at the very outset adverted our attention to the list of successful candidates selected against reserved seats for disabled candidates for the Session 2013-14 and asserted that at Sr. No. 1 Zeeshan Wahid had obtained an aggregate of 88.0260%, as such he should have been placed on open merit list as the last person on the list had obtained an aggregate of 68.6662%. The said seat being allotted to Zeeshan Wahid has actually been manipulated in order to extend him favour, which has deprived respondent No. 1 of being selected on a seat reserved for disabled candidates and it has caused prejudice to respondent No. 1. It was further stressed that the report obtained from the Medical Board constituted by the Chairman Admission Board is a manipulated document in order to deprive respondent No. 1 of his due right.
At the time of submission of the admission form, the respondent No.1 was duly examined by a Specialist working in a Government hospital and after examination he had verified that he has a disability, as such the same has not been challenged by the petitioners. The respondent No. 1 has been outstanding throughout his academic career. His aggregate is 81.06% which is much higher than the aggregate of most of the 20 candidates selected on reserved seats of disabled candidates and in this regard he adverted our attention to Sr. No. 20 wherein the aggregate of Usman Farooq is 68.6662% and asserted that the same depicts the mala fides and non- transparency being adopted by the petitioners at the time of admission. Lastly, he asserted that in view of contradictory reports and by keeping in view the brilliant career of respondent No. 1, he may be afforded an opportunity of being re-examined by a Medical Board of Doctors from C.M.H. In the interest of justice.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners while rebutting the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that Zeeshan Wahid was to be allowed admission on open merit, submitted that it is to be seen in the light of choice of medical college given by the candidate. The said candidate had opted for King Edward Medical College and according to the same he could only be admitted in the said college on a seat reserved for disabled candidates and not on open merit.
6. Heard. The respondent No. 1 at the time of submission of his admission had also submitted a certificate issued by a Specialist working A in a Government hospital with regard to his disability which was requirement under clause-ii)b. Of the rules and regulations. The said admission form had duly been processed by the petitioners and thereafter he had been directed to appear before the Medical Board constituted by the Chairman Admission Board, which had come to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 was not eligible for admission on physical disability seat. The dispute with regard to the above mentioned medical certificate/subject matter is to be determined in the light of rules and regulations provided by the petitioners in the prospectus for seats to be allocated for disabled candidates, which states the requirements in the following manner:- "RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF SEATS ii) Seats for Disabled Students: a........... b. The candidate shall have to attach a certificate from a government certified specialist about the nature of his/her disability. Such certificate, however, will only make him/her eligible to apply against the reserved seats.
C. A Medical Board constituted by the Chairman Admission Board will make final decision about the eligibility of the candidate for admission against the reserved seats. d......... f............ g.......... h........... i. ' The decision of the Medical Board shall be final."
' A perusal of the above quoted rules and regulations clearly shows that a candidate while applying for admission on a seat reserved for disabled candidates was required to attach with the same a certificate from a Specialist working in a Government hospital regarding his/her disability, but in clause-ii)c. It has been categorically stated that the Medical Board constituted by the Chairman Admission Board will make the final decision about the eligibility of the candidate for admission on the reserved seat. The respondent No. 1 was duly referred to the said Medical Board which; after examination, has held him not qualified for the category of reserved seats for disabled candidates and it is further emphasized in clause-ii)i. That the decision of the Medical Board shall be final.
7. In the light of the above, it is a settled law that in matters of admission and examination in educational institutions, the University authorities concerned are the sole judges of the criteria laid down in the prospectus. The Courts in such matters desist from interfering due to the reason that it would create difficulties for the said institutions to run its affairs in an appropriate manner according to their rules and regulations. In this regard, this Court in the case of Muhammad Ilyas v.
Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan and another (2005 SCM R 961) had held as under:-
5. We have heard the learned counsel and have also gone through the relevant regulation. At the outset it may be noted that as far as the rules/regulations framed by the University Authorities for the purpose of conductive/regularizing examination etc. Of University are concerned these are required to be interpreted by the University Authorities itself and Courts should avoid to interpret the same unless a case of grave injustice is not made out otherwise it would become difficult for University administration to run its internal affairs relating toexamination, etc 7(sic.) In the above perspective, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order by holding that the rules, regulations and criteria are to be interpreted by the University authorities itself and the Courts should avoid interpreting the same. Therefore, the High Court should have desisted from interpreting the rules and regulations set out by the University. Resultantly, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed.