' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, filed by Muhammad Tariq Raza petitioner challenges the refusal of respondents to admit him to the 1st Year M.B.,B.S. Class of a Medical College in the Punjab.
2. Through an advertisement appearing in the daily `Jang' of 6th of August, 1991, respondent No,1 invited applications for admission to the Ist Year M.B.,B.S. Classes for the year 1991-92. The last date for filing the applications was 24th of August, 1991. There is no dispute that the petitioner filed his application within the due date and as his result in Physics had not been declared by the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, he mentioned this fact in his application. The result of the petitioner was declared by the Board on 27th of August, 1991, according to which the petitioner secured 813 marks. This fact was duly intimated to the respondents on 28th of August, 1991. The application of the petitioner was, however, refused by the respondents on the ground that as the result of the petitioner had not been declared by the last date by which the applications could be filed, the petitioner was not entitled to admission.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that eligibility as also the merit of a candidate has to be determined as on the day on which the final selection is made by the Admission Board, which in the present case was the 1st of November, 1991, and as the result of the petitioner had been declared much before the date, he could not be denied admission. The learned counsel has pointed out that the last candidate admitted had secured 806 marks and as the petitioner had secured 813 marks, he ranked much higher on merits and could not be denied admission.
4. Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik, the learned Advocate-General, has relied upon paras. 12(a) and 112(a) of the Prospectus of the Government Medical Colleges in the Punjab read with the advertisement dated 6th of August, 1991, to argue that only the candidates who had passed the Intermediate Examination before the last date fixed for filing of the applications, i.e. 24th of August, 1991, were entitled to apply for admission.
4. There is no factual dispute between the parties. The essential facts which stand admitted are that the last date for filing the applications for admission to M.B.,B.S. 1991-92 was fixed by respondent No,1 as 24th of August, 1991. By that time, the result of the petitioner had not been declared by the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education. The final selection was made on 1- 11-1991. However, much before that date, to be precise, on 27-8-1991, the petitioner's result was declared, according to which he secured 813 marks. This fact was duly communicated to the respondents on 28-8-1991. The application of the petitioner was refused on 5th of November, 1991, when, admittedly, by that time not only he qualified but also ranked higher on merits.
5. In the first instance, the respondents relied upon clause (g) of para. 12 of the Prospectus. But this provision, as has been conceded by the learned Advocate-General, is not applicable to the petitioner, who is a domicile of Punjab. By its wording it applies to those candidates, who are not domiciled in the province.
6. The learned Advocate-General in order to justify the action then placed reliance upon paras. 12
(a) and (c) of the Prospectus. These provisions, however, have no applicability. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed the application for admission before the last date mentioned therein for filing the applications. Although by that time the result of the petitioner had not been declared but when the applications came up for consideration, the result was available. There is nothing in clauses (a) and (c) ibid to indicate that the applications submitted before the due date by those candidates whose result had not yet been declared could not be entertained.
7. It cannot be doubted that even while deciding the cases of admission, the respondents are obliged to act fairly, justly in a reasonable and prudent manner. It is by now well established law that the right of a candidate for admission on merits is to be determined as on the day when the final selection is made. It was so ruled by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Habib ur Rahman v.
Government of Pakistan and others 1979 SCM R 121. In that case, the candidate had notified alongwith his application the certificate of domicile from the Political Agent or Agency concerned.
While repelling the contention that he was not entitled to admission, it was observed by the Supreme Court 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 so entitled to do, provided the certificate was produced before the authorities announced the list of candidates granted admission". In Ghulam Murtaza v. Chairman, Selection Board/Principal, K.E. Medical College, Lahore and 2 others 1981 CLC 274, it was observed by this Court that the merit of a candidate has to be calculated for admission with reference to facts and reality. Similarly, in a case much close to one in hand viz. Muhammad Ziaul Haq v. Admission Board of Medical Colleges of Punjab and 8 others 1991 M LD 1648, it was observed by my learned brother Falak Sher, J., that "Secondly the Chairman, Admission Board, was admittedly duly apprised of the petitioner's revised result prior to the notification of the merit list of successful candidates; lastly, assuming for the sake of arguments, . rule 12(g) ibid is attracted to the instant case even then the expression 'final selection' in the context of things as terminus quo would mean that the date on which the last candidate amongst the contemporary applicants was granted the admission which, admittedly, occasioned on 30-44990. This legal proposition remained uncontroverted by the learned Additional Advocate-General".
' I am in respectful agreement with the view taken in the above case.
8. As already discussed, clauses (a) and (c) of para. 12 of the Prospectus do not in any manner advance the case of the respondents. These provisions merely require that an application filed by the candidate must be complete in all respects and should be accompanied by the relevant documents. There is, however, no further requirement that only the candidate whose result has been declared can apply. The learned Advocate-General has submitted that it is implicit in these two provisions that only the candidates who have passed the Intermediate Examination can make the application. I regret my inability to agree with him. It would be highly incongruous and unjust to hold that though by the time of selection a candidate had duly qualified the examination and is entitled to be admitted on merits, yet he should be denied admission merely because his result had not been declared at the time when the application was filed by him without any fault of his. If I may say so with respect to the learned Advocate-General, if the interpretation being placed by him upon the two clauses referred to above is accepted, it would render the provisions to be highly unreasonable, discriminatory and without any rational basis. In that event the restrictions would be liable to be struck down.
' As a result of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to admit the petitioner to the Medical College in Punjab in accordance with rules.
' There shall be no order as to costs.