Z. C. VALLIANI, J-The petitioner above-named, being aggrieved by the decision of respondent No. 1, communicated to the petitioner vide letter No. S. O. (M. E.), 2-549 H-80, Karachi dated 26th January, 1981, by which petitioner's request for her transfer from Nawabshah Medical College to Dow Medical College, Karachi, was turned down, has preferred this petition inter alia, on the following facts and grounds
1. Petitioner is a student of First Year M. B., B. S. And is presently studying in Nawabshah Medical College, at Nawabshah. Petitioner is domicile of Karachi District and has been residing there since birth. Her parents are also residing at Karachi. She has no relations or place of her own at Nawabshah. Petitioner passed her Intermediate Examination from Karachi in the year 1980, securing total of 67.7 % marks and applied for admission to the First Year of M. B., B. S., against the quota of the District of Karachi. 272 seats were reserved for female students of the district of Karachi. Out of these seats 126 were allocated in Dow Medical College, Karachi, 109 in Sind Medical College, Karachi and 37 in Nawabshah Medical College, Nawabshah. The selection for admission to these seats was on the basis of merits. ,
2. Petitioner wanted her admission to either of the two Medical Colleges at Karachi. Another candidate Miss Naila, whose percentage of marks was equal to that of the petitioner, got admission at Karachi, but the peti--tioner could not be admitted in either of the Medical Colleges at Karachi, for want of seats and therefore she was admitted in Nawabshah Medical College where she is studying at present. According to petitioner, during this academic year two seats have fallen vacant at Karachi, as the students admitted against these seats namely respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have discon--tinued their studies and as such the petitioner approached respondent No. 2, for her admission against seats which according to the petitioner have fallen vacant, at Karachi and on the advice of respondent No. 2, petitioner applied to the respondent No. 1, for the said purpose on 28-12-1980 as per Annexure "A" and the said application was followed yet by another application dated 7-1-1981. Petitioner submits, that her said applications were for admission at Karachi against the vacant seats and not for migration, as wrongly construed by respondent No. 1, while rejecting her request vide Respondent No. 1's letter dated 26-1-1981, Annexure 'C' to the petition.
3. Petitioner further alleges, that while her application was rejected, a similar application of one Miss Talat Sultana, whose percentage of marks was less than that of the petitioner was accepted and she was called to join Dow Medical College, Karachi. In view of the above facts, petitioner has filed above petition, on the grounds mentioned in the said petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the grounds mentioned in the above petition, submitted that rule 5 of Chapter IV of the Prospectus for the year 1980-81, applied to her case, but respondent No. 1 wrongly treated her application for transfer, as application for migration under Chapter V of the said Prospectus and rejected the same, on the said basis. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted, that under rule 1 of Chapter III of the said Prospectus, petitioner was entitled to a seat in Medical Colleges, at Karachi, but since at the time of selection, as seats at Karachi, on merits basis were not available, she was sent to Nawabsbah Medical College and as such since seats have now become available, she is entitled to get the same, on the basis of her merit, under rule 5 of the Chapter IV of the said Prospectus.
5. The learned Additional Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 stated, the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 continue to be on the rolls of the students of Dow Medical College. He further submitted that even if such seats did become vacant, then too, the same will have to be filled up according to the procedure laid down in rule 5 of Chapter IV, which rule is no more applicable to the petitioner, as she ceased to be candidate once she was admitted in Medical College, Nawabshah, on her selection on merits, the only way out for the petitioner according to the Additional Advocate-General was to apply under Chapter V (Rules of Migration) of the Prospectus in question, and since her application did not come within the rules of migration, the same was rightly rejected.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel and have gone through rule 5 of Chapter IV of the Prospectus for the year 1980-81. Although respondents Nos.
1 and 2 as well as respondent No. 3 have denied that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have ceased to be the students of Dow Medical College so far, still, we have considered the sub--missions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis, that at least one seat has fallen vacant or is likely to fall vacant which was allotted to respondent No. 4. In spite of this we are afraid, we cannot agree with the inter--pretation placed by learned counsel for petitioner on rule 5 of Chapter IV of the said Prospectus, which rule reads as under :- "The seats which remain vacant at the time of selections shall be filled in by admitting the next candidate on merits from the same District. If still seats remain vacant, the same shall be filled in by considering candidates on combined merit from the same tagged Districts for submitting the application, allocating boys' seats to boys and girls' seats to girls. In case a seat falls vacant during 1st academic year of admission, the same will be filled in by adopting the aforsaid procedure.
6. The above rule is very clear, that if any seats become vacant during 1st Academic year of admission, the same will be filled in by adopting the procedure as mentioned in this rule, which means, a candidate who failed to secure admissions for want of seats, they will be offered such vacant seats, on merits, from waiting list, which is always available. If such vacant seat were to be offered as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner t the students already admitted it will result in reconsidering the admission already made on merits and would result in general review of all allocations) made. Such a procedure could not be considered as reasonable. In our opinion, petitioner ceased to be a candidate for purposes of rule 5 of Chapter IV, as soon as, she was selected and admitted to Nawabshah Medical College.
8. No other point or ground was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner before us and in view of our interpretation of rule 5 of Chapter IV, we see no merits in the above petition, and dismiss the same, with no order as to costs.
9. However, before parting with this case, we would like to mention that since 1st Academic Year is practically over, candidates on waiting list may not be offered seats, which may fall now vacant and as such on the basis of the case of Miss Tallat Sultana, case of the petitioner requires consideration, as she has no relations and house of her own in Nawabshah. We are confident that respondent No. 1 would take note of these observations of ours and reconsider petitioner's case, if seat of respondent No. 4 falls vacant, in near future.