' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenges the refusal of the respondent No,1 to grant admission to the petitioner in 1st Year M.B.,B.S. Class, in a Medical College in Punjab, against the seats reserved for disabled persons..
2. According to the facts stated in this petition, in 1974 when the petitioner was 3 years old, she suffered on attack of Polio, which resulted in complete paralysation of one leg, while the other leg was also 90% affected. It is stated that the petitioner can walk with the help of clutches. After having qualified her Matriculation Examination, she joined Government College for Women, Multan, and appeared in 1992 in the Intermediate Pre-medical Group) examination in which she secured 779 marks.)
3. On the strength of this qualification, she applied for grant of admission to a Medical College in Punjab. In response to this application a letter was addressed to her by Chairman, Admission Board (respondent No,1) on 3rd December, 1992, calling upon her to appear before a Board of Medical Specialists for the purposes of assessment of her disalbility. Her grievance in this petition is that though the students with lesser marks were granted admission against the seats reserved for disabled persons, her application was refused without disclosing any reaons.
4. In the parawise comments filed by the respondent, almost all the facts have been admitted. The reason for refusing the application of the petitioner for admission disclosed is that she was examined by a Board of Medical Specialists comprising of 5 Senior Professors, who opined that she was not physically fit to carry on studies and to perform her professional duties after qualifying M.B.,B.S. Examination.
5. It is pointed out in the report that according to para 12 of the prospectus issued by the Government of Punjab for Medical Colleges, a disabled student can only be granted admission, if he is in a position to show that he is physically fit to carry on his studies and to perform professional duties after qualifying M.B.,B.S. Examination.
6. Ch. Rafique Ahmad Bajwa, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner admittedly fulfilled the criteria laid down by respondent No,1 himself in his letter dated 3rd December, 1992, for determining whether or not a student is a disabled person entitled to admission against the reserved seats and subsequent refusal is clearly mala fide. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the opinion rendered by the Board was not correct and was tendered for ulterior motives. In the last, it was contended that para. 12 of the Prospectus is unreasonable and arbitrary and is liable to be struck down.
7. Mr. Farooq Bedar, learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, argued that only such disabled students can be granted admission, who would be in a position to carry out studies and later on practise the profession of medicine and there was nothing unreasonable in prescribing such a condition. According to the learned Additional Advocat-General, five Senior Professors who constituted the Board set up for the said purpose, had opined that due to her disability, the petitioner is unable to carry on studies, nor she be in a position to render service as a doctor. The allegations about mala fides were refuted and it was also pointed out that neither the particulars thereof have been given nor the persons who are alleged to have acted mala fide have been impleaded as parties.
8. Mr. Asaf Vardag, Advoacate, appeared for Miss Noshin Safdar, respondent No,2, who was impleaded as a party on an application made on her behalf on 7th March, 1993, as she has been selected for admission as disabled student against a seat reserved for said purpose, but that admission has been withheld on account of an interim order passed in this petition by which the petitioner was granted provisional admission.
9. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable lengh and given our consideration to the arguments raised by them, we are of the view that the petitioner cannot succeed in this petition.
10. According to the Prospectus of the Government Medical Colleges in Punjab, for the Session 1992-93, 12 seats have been reserved for disabled students. The criteria for admission against these seats have been laid down in para. 6 which is reproduced as under:-- "6. Disabled students: ' The admission of the disabled students will be on merit and subject to the production of following certificates from a special Board/Committee to be constituted by the Admission Board:-
(1) That he/she is a disabled student.
(2) That he/she is physically/mentally fit to carry on studies and perform professional duties after qualifiying M.B.,B.S."
11. It will be appreciated from the above that the eligibility of a candidate against the seats reserved for disabled students is dependent upon two conditions, firstly, he/she should be a disabled student and secondly, that he/she is physically/mentally fit to carry on studies and perform perfessional duties after qualifying M.B.,B.S. Consequently, even if a student is disabled, he can only be granted admission against the reserved seats if a special Board/Committee to be constituted by the Admission Board certifies that he or she would be physically/mentally fit to carry on studies and to perform duties after qualifying M.B.,B.S.
12. The rationale in prescribing such a condition is not difficult to understand. M.B.,B.S. Is a professional qualification which is different and distinct from general education. While, in the case of latter, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a student who wishes to carry on studies should not be prevented or prohibited from doing so, may carry some weight, but this has no applicability in a case relating to specialized field of education like medicine specially when it is a matter of common knowledge that there is a shortage of seats in Medical Colleges. It cannot be denied that the medical education is highly subsidized and in addition to the fee paid by the students, the other expenditure incurred on him or her is made from public exchequer. If a student due to physical or mential disability is not in a position to carry on the studies and complete the course or even after qualification is not in a position to practise medicine and to render benefit to the society, it would be to nobody's benefit that he/she should be granted admission in preference to a person who is in a position to complete the studies and also to make use of the knowledge and experiences gained from it. We are, therefore, not impressed with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the imposition of such a condition on the disabled student is arbitrary or unreasonable. It is unfortunate that in the present case, the disability suffered by the petitioner is of such a nature that she cannot complete her studies and render professional services thereafter, she is not entitled to be admitted in terms of para 6 (2) of the Prospectus.
13. Ch. Rafique Ahmad Bajwa, Advocate, submitted that as the petitioner had admittedly passed her Matriculation and F.Sc. Examinations, there was no occasion to hold that she would not be in a position to carry on her studies in M.B.,B.S. This argument of the learned counsel fails to take notice of the difference between education at Intermedicate level and in a Medical College. Needless to say that apart from the fact that the syllabi of the medical course are quite different, a medical student, in addition to attending classes is also required to take practicals and even to perform surgery.
' Be that as it may, we are in no position to substitute our opinion for the Board of Specialists constituted by the Admission Board in terms of para 6 of the Prospectus.
14. The next argument of- the learned counsel about mala fides is also highly misconceived. No particular of the mala fides has even asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner against the Chairman/Admission Board, have been given in this petition or spelt out during the course of arguments. The only contention of the learned counsel was that some candidates who were not even disabled have been granted admission.
15. As regards mala fides, attributed to the Committee which had been established and examined her, it has to be observed that the Committee or its Members have not been impleaded as parties nor it has been pointed out as to which of the Members was acting for ulterior motives. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in The Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi v. Saeed Ahmad Khan and others (PLD 1974 SC 151), no effect can be given to this argument of the learned counsel.
16. Be that as it may, nothing substantial has been placed on record to show that the Committee had not acted bona fide in rendering their opinion against the petitioner. We may also notice that the Committee comprised of Senior Professions of various fields of medicines and in the absence of anyting substantial being brought on record to established the mala fides, we have no hesitation in repelling this argument as being wholly unfounded.
17. Ch. Rafiq Ahmad Bajwa, Advocate, in the same context argued that as no reason whatsoever has been given by the Committee in support of its opinion, their decision suffers from arbitrationess. In view of this contention, we had called for the record of the Committee and we notice that the petitioner has been found unfit by making the following observation:- "Suffering Polio paralysis both lower limbs severely damaged, walks on clutches, and was disabled to serve medical education".
' In the petition itself, it stands admitted that unfortunately one complete leg of the petitioner and 90% of the other leg is paralysed and the petitioner cannot even walk without the help of clutches.
In these circumstances, we are of the view that there is hardly any arbitrationess in the opinion rendered by the experts in their filed, so as to justify interference by this Court.
18. In the last it may also be observed that against the seat in question, respondent No,2 who is also a disabled person has been granted admission. It is, therefore, a disabled student, who has been accommodated against the reserved seat. Although, one may sympathize with the condition of the petitioner, but the fact remains that in the case of contest, in all fairness the seat should go to a disabled student, whose disability is of that nature that he/she can complete the education and thereafter render services as medical practitioner rather than to a student, who due to his/her unfortunate disability is not in a position to render any service in the medical field and even the completion of education by her is doubtful.
' For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any force in this petition, which is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.