S. A. NUSRAT, J.-By means of this Constitutional Petition, the petitioner has sought directions to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for giving her admission in the first year M. B., B. S. Class for the academic year 1978-79.
2. The petitioner passed her Intermediate (Pre-Medical examination) securing 516 marks and applied for admission to Medical College for the academic year 1978-79, against a seat from Badin District to which area 10 seats were allocated. It is alleged that the petitioner stood on merits at Sr.
No. 7. The petitioner was called for interview on 26-2-1979. When it was found by the respondent No. 1 that she had not furnished her own Domicile Certificate. Accordingly the petitioner applied to the District Magistrate, Badin and was granted Domicile Certificate which she produced before the respondent No. 1 on 1-3-1979. It is alleged that respondent No. 1, on the receipt of the Certificate, assured her that she will be granted admission. However, when-the results were announced on 29th March, 1979 the name of the petitioner' was not included in the list of the successful candidates. Respondent No. 3, who had secured only 450 marks, was selected. We sent for parawise comments on the petition from the Principal, Liaquat Medical College, Hyderabad, which has since then been received. It is disclosed fro the comments that the petitioner had submitted a Domicile Certificate of her guardian Mr. Mumtaz Ahmed Memon which.
Did not include her name and as such the said certificate was not accepted by the Selection Board. According to rule 7 of the Prospectus for the -Year 1978-1979 the petitioner was required to submit the documents mentioned in the rule. The allegation that the papers submitted by the petitioner were found to be in order has been denied. The allegation that the petitioner was assured of admission and was granted any time for producing the certificate has also been denied in the comments. Rule 12 of the Prospectus for the relevant year in question provides that the candidates must submit all the relevant documents at least at the time of interview and accordingly the petitioner had failed to comply with the said rule. The relevant date for the production of the necessary documents was the date of interview and if the petitioner did not care for the furnishing of the documents, as required in rule 7 of the Prospectus, she alone is to be blamed for this lapse on her parts.
3. Mr. M. I. Memon, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited our attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1979 SCMR 121. In that case the question of admission related to a student who hailed from Orakzai Agency of the North-West Frontier Province and there is no discus--sion in the judgment with regard to any rule, like the one involved in this petition. In the circumstances, on facts, the judgment is not applicable in the instant case.
4. In the result we find no substance in this petition which is dismissed summarily.