ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.-This order will dispose of I: C. A. No. 262 of 1981 and I. C. A. No. 263 of 1981, as these arise in similar circumstances.
L -C. A. No. 262 of 1981:
2. Appellant passed her F. So. Examination and obtained 602 marks. Respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 passed their F. So. Examinations and obtained 597, 595 and 588 marks, respectively. They were allowed 20 marks each for having undergone training under the National Guards Act of 1973, as amended. In the tabulated form their position will be: F.Sc. marks.TrainingTotal.
Appellant Respondent No. 3.
Respondent No. 4.
Respondent No. 5.602 597 595 58820 20 20602 617 615 608 All of these are Doctor's children and sought admission in M. B., B. S. Classes under para. 4 of the Prospectus for the year 1980-81. Since the total marks of the respondents as adjusted by addition of 20 marks were more than those of the appellant, they were given preference and admitted to the course. The appellant challenged the action by contending that since she had got more than 600 marks, she was entitled to be placed in the first category (a) under para. 21 of the Prospectus and the respondents will fall under category (d) and admission has to be category-were in the descending order, the appellant was entitled to preference. Addition of 20 marks for the training may be added under the law but cannot change the category of the candidates. Her contention did not find favour with the learned Single Judge and her Constitutional Petition No. 232.7 of 1981 was dismissed in limine vide order dated 21-5-1981. Hence this Intra-Court appeal.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated the submission.
4. A similar contention was raised by the authorities in the case of Miss lmrana Malik v. Chairman, Selection Committee for Admission in Medical Colleges, Lahore (PLD 1977 Lah. 820) but was repelled by Mr. Justice Nasim Hasan Shah of the Lahore High Court as then and now a learned Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on the principal ground that that would whittle down the advantage allowed by the Statute. The Statutory provisions for boys and girls seeking admission in sections 29 and 35, clause (c) of Act LXI of 1973 as amended by Ordinance IV of 1975, provide that he or she "shall for the purpose of admission to any institution of advanced studies, be awarded twenty marks in addition to the marks obtained by her in the examination held for the purpose of such admission or, if no such examination is held, in the examination on the basis of having qualified in which she seeks such admission." Besides that, the case of the respondents rests for admission and so does of the appellant, on the Prospectus for the admission, which provides in para. 22 as under "Rules for working out merit of candidates.--The following marks shall be added or deducted from the total marks of the candidates in order to prepare the final merit fist.
(a) Add. 20 marks for National Cadet Corps Training for a person who has completed the training By addition of these marks, the respondents got more marks than the appellant and that also brings them in category (a) in which she is placed. The respondents having got more marks were, therefore, given the preference and admission and consequently, action of the authorities cannot be said to be without lawful authority. Hence, the appeal fails, though it is unfortunate that the appellant who got more marks in studies has not got the admission. The appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances the parties shall bear their own cots.
I. C. A. No. 263 of 1981
5. In the second appeal, the appellant got First Division in B. So. But has not got the admission to M.
B., B. S. Classes because the respondents by addition of 20 marks got into the first category of candidates eligible for admission and that category was not exhausted so as to allow admission to persons in the next category to which the appellant belongs. It is, again, unfortunate that a person with higher academic attainments cannot enter the portals of educational institution if that is already filled with people of lesser academic qualifications, though of generally younger age and with fresher minds. In an advancing country and no country can remain at stand--still otherwise it will stagnate and wither away, the solution of the problem is to provide more educational opportunities to seekers of knowledge but it is for the authorities running the affairs of the State and the Court, in spite of its deep sympathies with the appellant, cannot say that the action of the authorities is without lawful authority. Therefore, the second appeal -is also dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.