1. ' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.--In the Intermediate Science (Pre-Medical Examination) held in the year 1983 the petitioner secured 709 marks out of 1100. He had also completed N.C.C. Training and claimed 20 additional marks. The petitioner being the son of a medical practitioner applied for admission to the 1st Year M.B.,B.S. Class against one of the 9 seats reserved for the children of doctors. The respondent No. 3 also fell in the same category. He had appeared in Intermediate Science Examination in 1983 under the Old Scheme when the maximum marks were 1000 and he had obtained 672 marks. As he had made two attempts for improving the division according to rules 10 marks were to be deducted from his total marks. None of the petitioners and the respondent No.3 were selected for admission, so they were kept on the waiting list in which precedence has been given to the respondent No.3 and after him comes the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the determination of merit list and claims to be placed at No.1 in the waiting list instead of the respondent No.3.
2. ' The Rules of admission are contained in the prospectus of M.B.,B.S: and B.D.S. for Medical Colleges of Sind Province 1983-84, rule 17 reads as follows:- "17. Rules for working out merit of candidates:--
(a) Merit for admission shall be determined on the total number of marks secured in Inter Science or B.Sc. examination as the case may be.
(b) The following marks shall be added or deducted from the total marks of the candidates in order to prepare the adjusted merit marks for final merit list. This addition or deduction shall not alter the Division of the candidates:
(i) Add 20 marks for service rendered under National Cadet Corps Scheme subject to the production of requisite certificate under the National Guards Act, 1973.
(ii) Deduct 5 marks if candidate has appeared a second time, in Inter Science or B.Sc. Examination in order to improve his/her Division."
3. ' Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in calculating the total marks for the purposes of determining the merits for admission the aforesaid rules have not been followed. According to the petitioner in terms of rule 17 the respondent No.2 should have first added 20 marks in the total of 709 which he had secured in the Intermediate Examination bringing his total marks to 729 out of 1100. After that to bring at par with the respondent No.3 the respondent No.2 should have calculated the marks the petitioner would secure out of 1000. By this method of conversion the petitioner would have obtained 664.45 marks.
4. According to the petitioner the respondent No.3 has obtained 672 marks out of 1000 and after deducting 10 marks it would have been reduced to 662 out of 1000 and therefore, the petitioner would be on the top of the merit list of the waiting candidates of his category.The respondent No.2 has adopted a different formula for calculating the marks obtained by the petitioner and the respondent No.3. The same is reproduced as follows:- "As regards deduction of 10 marks from the total marks obtained by respondent No.3 it is submitted that he had appeared in the F.Sc. Examination under Old Scheme where the maximum marks were 1000 and he obtained 672 out of 1000 marks. From the year 1983 the maximum marks have been raised to 1100 on account of addition of subjects of Islamic and Pakistan Studies by the Intermediate Education Board. As such 10 marks for two extra attempts of respondent No.3 are not to be deducted straightaway from the marks 672 obtained by him from out of 1000. This deduction will be affected after conversion of marks into 1100, so as to put him on equal footing with the majority of candidates who secured marks out of 1100. Thus the position visualizes as on the next page. (as under):- {{TABLE}} Name with Marks Marks Marks Marks Inter Sc. father's obtained obtained added deducted adjusted name. out of for NCC for extra out of 1100 attempt 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mr. Sohail A. Khan son of 672/1000 Dr. Sajjad (obtained) A. Khan (Resp. 3).
5. Mr. Shakeel Abbas son of Dr. S.M.
6. Abbas (Petitioner) 709/1100 (-)10 729.2/1100 (obtained) 20 729/1100 {{TABLE}} ' The respondent No.2 has first calculated the marks of the respondent No.3 out of the maximum marks of 1100 and then deducted 10 marks out of it. According to Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid in view of rule 171 the respondent No.2 should have first determined what marks have been obtained by the petitioner and respondent No.3 out of 1000 and thereafter addition and deductions should have been made. By adopting this formula the respondent No.2 is required to first convert the petitioner's marks in to marks obtained out of 1000. Instead the respondent No.2 has first converted the marks of the respondent No.3 obtained out of 1100. In both the methods it was necessary to convert the marks of the rival candidates. The respondent No.2 has explained that the respondent No.3 had been examined under the Old Scheme when the maximum marks were 1000. Now it has been increased to 1100 and except few all the candidates have been examined on that basis. For bringing all the candidates at par as regards maximum marks, it was necessary to adopt some basis of conversion. The formula adopted by the respondent No.2 is not unreasonable as majority of the candidates had been examined on the basis of maximum marks of 1100 and it was convenient to convert the marks of few candidates who had been examined under the Old Scheme.
7. 'The petitioner has not alleged that the respondent No.2 has acted mala fide. It was possible for the respondent No.2 to adopt any of the two formulas.The procedure adopted by the respondent No.2 not being unreasonable, mala fide or arbitrary we would not like to interfere with it. The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.