1. SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, CJ.---This appeal has been directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 16-1-1994, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant, herein, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present case are that Faisal Bashir, appellant herein, is son of Doctor Muhammad Bashir who holds M.B.,B.S. Degree. The appellant applied for admission to some medical college against the seat reserved for doctors' children. The appellant secured 680 marks in pre-medical examination held in the year 1992-93 while Miss Saadia Malik, respondent No.5, secured 819 marks in the pre-medical examination held in the year 1993-94. The Nomination Board considered the matter in light of the relevant instructions and nominated the appellant for admission against the reserved seat in Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad. The said decision of the Nomination Board was communicated to the Ministries of Health through the Secretary, Health Department, Government of Punjab, Lahore, and Secretary, Health Department, Government of N.- W.F.P. Peshawar, the appellant was also informed of the decision.
3. It may be stated that Miss Saadia Malik; respondent No.5, is the daughter of a Lady Dental Surgeon who is in the Government service. She sought her nomination against the said reserved seat on the ground that she got more marks in pre-medical group than the appellant. Consequently, she preferred an appeal to the Prime Minister of Azad Jammu and Kashmir who expressed the view that she being a daughter of a Dental Surgeon (B.D.S.), falls within the ambit of the meanings of the word `doctor' and was also entitled to the nomination against the reserved seat on the basis of merits. Consequently, the Nomination Board reversed its decision and nominated Miss Saadia Malik, respondent No.5, against the seat reserved in Ayub Medical College,. Abbottabad. Thus, she was admitted to Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad and is studying there at present.
4. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the nomination and the admission of Miss Saadia Malik mainly on the ground that she being daughter of a Dental Surgeon was not entitled to admission against reserved seat as the word `doctor' employed in the relevant instructions means only a doctor who holds M.B.,B.S. Degree and not a Dental Surgeon. The said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. Consequently, a petition for leave to appeal was filed in this Court which was converted into an appeal so as to expedite the disposal of the matter in view of its urgency. The written arguments have been submitted by the parties as was directed by the Court.
5. We have gone through the written arguments submitted by the parties. The moot point in the case which falls for resolution is as to whether the Dental Surgeon would fall within the ambit of the meanings of word `doctor' as employed in the instructions issued by the Government on 2nd April, 1986 or it would imply only a `doctor' who is a general practitioner and holds the degree of M.B.,B.S. The perusal of the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant reveals that according to him only a doctor who is a medical practitioner and holds M.B.,B.S. Degree would be related as a `doctor' within the meaning of aforesaid instructions, and not a Dental Surgeon. As no definition of the word `doctor' has been given in the relevant instructions the learned Judge in the High Court has rightly considered the connotation of the said word in the light of its dictionary meanings. In view of the meanings of word `doctor' given in standard dictionaries, we have no doubt that word `doctor' includes a Dental Surgeon and its meaning and connotation is not confined only to a M.B.,B.S. Doctor. A reference may be made to "Blakiston's Illustrated Pocket Medical Dictionary", second edition, wherein the word `doctor' has been defined at page 220 as under:-- "Doctor.--One licensed, usually after special study, and qualifying by examination, to practice Medicine, dentist or veterinary medicine." (underlining is ours)
6. Similarly, in the `Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English', eighth edition, the word `doctor' has been defined at page 344 as under:-- "Doctor--a qualified practitioner of medicine, a physician, a qualified dentist or veterinary surgeon."
7. (underlining is ours). It is evident from the above dictionary meanings of the word `doctor' that a Dental Surgeon is a 'doctor' within the meaning of relevant instructions. No reference has been made to any standard work showing that the word `doctor' means only a medical practitioner holding M.B.,B.S. Degree and not a Dental Surgeon.
8. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that if the word `doctor' is assigned wider meanings as has been done by the High Court, it would also include a `doctor' who is Ph.D. in some subject and not only a medical practitioner. The argument is not tenable because the meaning of the word `doctor' in the instant case is to be ascertained with reference and in the context of the instructions on the subject; which mean that the word `doctor' have been used for medical practitioners including Dental Surgeons and not for the persons who hold Ph.D. Degrees and are also called `doctors'.
9. Next, it has been contended on behalf of the appellant that initially the appellant was nominated against the reserved seat and the decision of the Nomination Board was also communicated to the Health Ministers concerned, as such his nomination could not be subsequently withdrawn without giving a show-cause notice to him. The contention is not tenable for the reason that the order was withdrawn before the final step. in pursuance of the nomination of the appellant was taken, i.e., before he was admitted to the medical college. Thus, the Nomination Board retained locus poenitentiae to withdraw his nomination without serving any notice; the appellant did not have a vested right merely but the factum of his nomination. Under section 21 of the General Clauses Act authority issuing an order can withdraw the same before final step is taken in pursuance of the same.
10. It has also been contended on behalf of the appellant that according to the Prospectus of King Edward Medical College, Lahore, and a letter written by the Principal of the said College, the reserved seats for the sons and the daughters of doctors are only allocated to the sons and daughters of medical practitioners who are holding M.B.,B.S. Degrees. It may be stated that even if it is held that the prospectus of King Edward Medical College or the letter allegedly written by the Principal of the said College is admissible in evidence as proof of the controversial fact, those may be based on the policy of the appropriate Governments and the guidelines provided in that regard and, thus, would not help the appellant whose case is to be considered in light of the Muhammad Mumtaz-ul-Islam v. Addl. Settlt. Commr. (L) 1597 (Shaikh Abdul Manan, J) instructions issued by the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir on the subject.
11. It is also contended that the name of respondent No.5 was included in the list of Nomination Board at a later stage as is indicated by the alleged tempering in the list prepared by the Nomination Board. The argument is not relevant because even if it is assumed that there is any such tampering in the said list or the name of respondent No.5 was later on inserted in the list, it would not affect the merits of the case of the respondent. It has already been stated that respondent No.5 was subsequently nominated when she filed appeal against the order of Nomination Board.
12. In the light of what has been stated above, finding no force in this appeal it is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.