1. SALEEM AKHTAR, J.-This is a petition challenging the order of res--pondents Nos. 1 and 2 refusing to admit the petitioner in the M. B., B. S. Class in the academic session for the year 1980-81. The petitioner has passed B. Sc (Honour) Part II examination held in the year 1980 and was declared successful in the month of February, 1981 having secured 61.31 and was placed in the first year M. B., B. S. In Chandka Medical College, Larkana or at Girls Medical College, Nawabshah for the academic session 1980-81. According to the prospectus issued by respondent No. 1 there were 12 seats reserved for girl students from Khairpur District. According to the merit list of the girl candidates of District Khairpur the petitioner's name appeared at Serial No. 6 and, respondent No. 3 at Serial No. 13 having obtained 51.1 % marks. The petitioner was called for interview on 8-3-1981 and it is alleged that she was informed that she has been selected subject to production of domicile certificate. The domicile certificate was accordingly produced within the specified time. When the final list of selected candidates for admission was affixed on the notice board of the college on 21-3-1981 it transpired that the petitioner's name was missing. On inquiry being made the respondent No. 2 informed her that admission was refused as she had failed to file the mark sheet of B. Sc. (Pass) examina--tion. The petitioner pleaded that no such mark sheet for B. Sc. (Pass) examination is issued by Sind University and a certificate from the University to that effect was also filed by her along with his admission application but the respondent No. 2 refused to accept it. Respondent No. 3 was given admission. The petitioner made representation to the respondent No. 2 which was rejected by his order dated 11-4-1981 in which it was stated that the admission has been refused as the petitioner did not submit the mark sheet of B. Sc. Part.-1I examination of 1979 at the time of interview. The petitioner has therefore challenged that the admission has been refused illegally and arbitrarily and- the order passed is without lawful authority.
2. The petition was admitted on 30-4-1981 and after notice to the res--pondents without prejudice to the rights of the respondent No. 3 petitioner was allowed to attend the classes at her own risk. The petitioner therefore continued to attend the classes. The respondent No. 2 has filed comments and has pleaded that as the petitioner had failed to submit the mark sheet of B. Sc. Part 11 at the time of interview the admission was validly refused to her. The facts in this case are not at all disputed and the point for determination is whether the order passed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was without lawful authority.
3. Mr. Ali Aslam Jafri, the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to rules, 7-11 and 17 of the Prospectus of M. B., B. S. And B. D. S. For Medical Colleges of Sind Province 1980-81 issued by Health Department Government of Sind. Rule 7 provides the manner in which the application for admission shall be made and the documents which shall be accompanied with the application. It requires that B. Sc. Examination mark sheet wherever applicable, should be annexed with the application. Rule I1 provides that applications along with attested copies of the required documents shall be submitted in the prescribed form and all its columns must be filled correctly.
4. Incomplete forms are liable to be rejected. Rule 16 provides that the candidate shall be called for interview in order of merit and as many as candidates are necessary for filling up available seats. A perusal of these rules makes it clear that after the applications are submitted they are scrutinised by the authorities and if they are incomplete they are liable to be rejected. In the present case the admitted position is that after the application was submitted no objection was raised by the respondent . Nos. 1 and 2 and in fact the petitioner was called for interview. If the contention of Mr. S. Sarfraz Ahmed the learned A. A.-G. Appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is correct that the initial conditions as required by the, prospectus were not fulfilled-then how is it that after scrutiny the petitioner was called for interview. From these facts one can assume' that after scrutiny the fact that the mark sheet for B. Sc. Had not been submitted but instead a certificate of the University Certifying that the petitioner's aggregate marks in B. Sc. (pass) were 61.3 % together with another certificate that no mark sheets are issued to candidotes who pass B. Sc. (pass) examination, was considered sufficient to meet the requirement of the Rules. In these circumstances having waived the condition or having accepted the certificate of the University of Sind, and not having insisted on production of the mark sheet, in the absence of any other ground, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 could not valid press this ground for rejection of the application.
5. Besides this one can see that the objection raised by the respondent No. 2 was not only highly technical but seems to be an after thought. It is noteworthy that the University of Sind had issued a certificate to the effect that they do not. Issue mark sheets for B. Sc. (pass) Examination. In the face of this certificate which have been verified by respondent No. ' at his own and, it was beyond the control of the petitioner to have produced such a mark sheet. It is not the case of the respondents that the certificate issued by the University was incorrect.
6. Rule 17 provides that the marks for admission shall be determined on the number of marks secured in Inter Science or B. Sc. Examination as the case may be. It therefore, seems clear that for the purpose of admission it is the total number of marks secured by the candidate which is the determining factor. There is nothing in the rule to show that the admissions are determined on the basis of Marks obtained by candidate in, individual subjects. In the absence of such a rule there is no valid reason refusing to admit the petitioner on the ground that she failed to submit the mark- sheet. The total number of marks were certified by the Sind University in the certificate issued by them. On the basis of this certificate the peti--tioner was provisionally listed in the merit list at Serial No. 6. She was called for the interview and thereafter the respondents decided to reject her applica--tion on purely technical ground which can not be justified by any rule of justice and provision of law. Mr. Ali Aslam Jafry has referred to the case of Ghulam Murtaza v. Chairman, Selection Board, Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore and 2 others 1981 CLC 274In this case the petitioner had applied for admission to Medical College and filed certificate of having completed N. C. C. Training along with his admission form. This certificate was signed by Authorised Officer and not by Incharge. However another certificate duly signed by the Incharge was submitted before the final selection but admission was refused on the ground that proper certificate had not been submitted along with the application form in time. It was observed as follows :- "A little technicality has been made a fetish of deprivation. Merit has to be calculated for admission with reference to facts and reality. If these exist at the relevant time but the certification thereof which is not in the hand of the candidate follows subsequently the candidate cannot be punished for the acts of others."
7. In the present case the petitioner had in substance complied with all the formalities which were accepted by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. It was not within the control of the petitioner to have obtained the marks sheet and therefore, it cannot be termed as a default on the part of the petitioner for which she should be penalised. In fact all the material particulars required for determining the merits for admission were placed on record-, In the circumstances, the impugned order was passed arbitrarily and without lawful authority.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the case of Habibur Rehman v. Government of Pakistan and others (1979SCMR121.where the petitioner had applied for admission to Medical College and at the time of filing application relevant political Agency having been created candidate was required to produce fresh certificate of domicile from the political agent of the agency concern. The certificate was produced after the interview but before the list of successful candidates was announced. It was held that "It is true that the Orakzai Agency had been created by the date when this respondent had filed his application form therefore, he should have obtained a fresh certificate of domicile from the political Agent Orakzai Agency, and he did so by February, 1978.
9. But merely because this certificate was produced after the prescribed date for interviewing candidates from this Agency would not mean that the fourth respondent was debarred from applying for admission if he was otherwise entitled to do, provided the certificate was produced before the authorities announced the list of candidates granted admission."
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Munir Ahmed v. Government of Baluchistan and 4 others (PLD1981SC335In this case the local certificate which was treated as permanent residence certificate was issued which was later cancelled and again it was re-issued in favour of the petitioner. In the circumstances the admission was refused which was challenged and the following observation was made by the Honourable Supreme Court :- "The mere fact that the decision of the committee was published on 18-7-1980 and that the certificate remained in an invalid and cloudy suspense for only 28 days from 26-5-1980 to 28-7- 1980, when it was rectified, would not furnish the committee even a technical ground (what to talk of a substantial ground) to deny the petitioner's claim. At this stage, it would be of advantage to reproduce an observation in University of Dacca and another v. Zakir Ahmed (PLD 1965 SC 90)
11. (though made in a different context but fully attracted to the point in controversy). It reads :, "It is equally important to remember that unfair action may cause greater harm to the prestige of the heads of educational institution who are expected to be in lace parentis to the students and may seriously undermine the authority which they claim to possess over the students placed in their charge."
12. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 while considering the application have acted in a highly technical and arbitrary manner. They are not only placed in a position to decide the cases for admission according to rules but they are also expected to act in an equitable and legal manner. They cannot be permitted to act arbitrarily and to perpetuate such action in the garb of technicalities. An arbitrary act performed in good faith gives an impression of mala fides and is likely to be challenged in the Court of law consuming long time thereby affecting career of quite a few students. The authorities are expected and they should act in a proper, reasonable and fair manner. They should avoid to rely upon hyper-technical grounds. Mistakes are likely to be committed by any one but if it brought to notice efforts should be made to rectify it instead of making it a prestige point in a hyper-sensitive manner thereby ignoring all reason and elementary cannons of justice which even an executive authority is required to observe. In this regard -we would refer to the following observation made in PLD 1,981 SC 335.
13. "What judgment these young students of impressional age entering threshold of their practical life, will make about the District Adminis--tration. We will in this context also, reiterate the observation made in Zakir Ahmad's case through this time it will apply to the Civil District Administration. It is high time that the rules and machinery dealing with all these matters is streamlined. The sooner it is done, better it will be for the authorities concerned and the students. And above all the Courts will be saved of seeing the painful spectacle of young students being driven to Courts for redress in educational matters-the need of the society is to keep them away from litigation."
14. In view of the aforestated reasons on 19-11-1981 we had allowed the petition with the following short order;-- "For the reasons to be recorded later, this petition is allowed. The order refusing to grant admission to the petitioner is declared as without lawful authority and without any effect, with the direction that the petitioner shall be admitted to the First Year M. B., B. S. Class in Chandka Medical College or Girls Medical College, Nawabshah for 1980-81 session forthwith.
15. The learned Assistant Advocate-General made a request in Court that this admission may be treated in substitution for the respondent No. 3 but following the observation of the Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of Munir Ahmed v. Government of Baluchistan the consequential direction is refused.
16. The petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.