KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-This judgment will dispose of our writ petitions being (1) Writ Petition No. 1101 of 1975 titled :hsoizul Haque and another v. Federation of Pakistan and thers ; (PLD 1966 SC 467) Writ Petition No. 1110 of 1975 titled Abdul Sattar and rhrrs v. Government of Punjab ; (PLD 1966 SC 461Writ Petition No. 1132 of 1975 titled Nauman Akhtur and others v. Province of Punjab and (4)
Writ Petition No. 1164 of 1975 titled Mohammad Azhar Tahir v. Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore and another.
2. All these writ petitions pertain to seeking admission in the Medical Colleges of Punjab. The first point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that somewhere in April 1975 (to be more precise through advertisement dated 22-4-75)-certain additional seats were created in a new College-(to be opened in Lahore and)-known as Lahore Medical College and similar increase of certain number of seats was made in Rawalpindi College. While making admission in these Colleges students who had passed F. Sc. (pre-medical) in bi-annual supplementary examination were also taken or being taken into consideration. The case of the petitioners was that apple-- tions of those students who had passed F. Sc. In bi-annual/supplementary Examination should not be or should not have been taken into considera--tion for the aforesaid additional seats which, according to the petitioners,;, should rather be filled up from the applicants who had applied earlier on the basis of having passed F. Sc. (pre-medical) in Annual Examination with reference to earlier advertisement in that respect. The contention has no merit. The petitioners applied with reference to earlier advertisements which pertained to those seats and those Colleges which existed at the time of those advertisements. At that time the number of Colleges ands seats advertised was fixed and if later on simultaneously with increase ofl seats or Colleges the circumstances of applicants and applications were also enlarged the petitioners cannot have any just or legal grievance against the same, because, for n,-.w Colleges and seats the authorities concerned were -free to lay down such sphere and scope as they liked. We have not been shown that there existed any legal bar on the part of the authorities to do so or act accordingly. The petitioners rather should be grateful that their cases were (again)-also considered for those seats, but if even then they stand below and if there were still persons who had secured more marks than the petitioners and were accordingly admitted or were likely to be admitted on merits, the deficiency and defect, if any, pertained to the capabilities of the petitioners rather than in the authority of the Govern--ment to lay down - policies and principles on the subject in band. In the written statements of the respondents it has been clarified that the supple--mentary/bt-annual candidates were eligible to this new College (i.e. Lahore Medical College)-with the additional disadvantage of the deduction of five marks for each attempt. The petitioners if despite this handicap on the part of the supplementary/bi-annual candidates still lag behind, they should thank their stars and not blame the authorities.
3. The next point argued was that certain admissions had been made against a reserved quota known as "Governor's seats" even though the said quota was abolished. The petitioners seem to be labouring under a mistake, inasmuch as. The respondents have clarified that -the abolition of Governor's quota is to take place from next year-( i.e. Next admissions)-and not the present year or present admissions which are in dispute, The point fails on factual plane and is hereby repelled.
4. The last paint argued was that in Lahore Medical College 1 seats had been reserved for female students. It was submitted that this .Amounted to discrimination and was violative of fundamental right of "equality before law" as contained in Article 25(2) of the Constitution ,where it was written that "there shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex alone." The contention has no merit. Because, in clause (3) of the same Article it was written that "nothing in this Article shall prevent the Stat from making any special provision for the protection of women and children".
It cannot be seriously disputed that for protection of female . And children and to safeguard them against diseases, ill-health and ailments peculiar to their own class, laws and provisions can be made inter alla for fixing quota of seats for lady candidates and lady doctors in the Medical Colleges. Speaking for ourselves, we were really astonished to note that the male candidates who were otherwise low in merit were trying to score not over their own class but against ladies who even otherwise needed special protection and treatment under the Constitution. The attitude adopted instead of pointing out any discrimination in favour of the women folk depicted class hatred on the part of the petitioners. At this place reference may be made to Naseem Mahmood v.
Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore and others (PLD 1965 Lah. 272(Anwarul Haq and Muhammad Akram, JJ.) where at page 277 is a list of various reserved ,eats for certain categories of students. That list included reservation of certain seats for women. Though the question regarding reservation for women was not specifically attended to and the main discussion was confined to reservation on regional basis but an implied support can be had from certain passages occurring at pages 278 and 288 for the proposition that various reservations made thereunder-(including reservations for women)--were not illegal in any manner.
The passage at page 278 reads as follows :- "We are concerned solely with the question whether the Instructions--are invalid either for the reason that they have been issued by the--Provincial Government without lawful authority or for the reason that they come into conflict with any of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens by our Constitution. We accordingly proceed to examine the matter from these angles."
Then at page 288 it was concluded as follows :- "These reservations do not appear to us to offend against any of the provisions of our Constitution, as they are based on a reasonable classification, related to the object of the Scheme, vie., an equitable distribution of the available seats, taking into consideration all the relevant factors and not merely the marks obtained in the F. So. (Pre--Medical) Examination."
In Muller v. Oregon ((1908) 208 U S 412) (also reported in U. S. Supreme Court Reports (207--210) 53 Law Ed. (October term 1907) at page 411) there occurs a useful passage regarding position of woman under an ordinary social status of life. Though the law involved there was about fixing and regulating her hours of work but the passage which we wish to reproduce being of a general nature is a good guidance for keeping the various aspects of this species of mankind in view. It reads as follows :- "That woman's physical structure and the performance of maternal functions place her at a disadvantage in the struggle for subsistence is obvious. This is especially true when the burdens of motherhood are upon her. Even when they are not, by abundant testimony of the medical faternity continuance for a long time on her feet at work, repeating this from day to day, tends to injurious effects upon the body, and, as healthy mothers are essential to vigorous offspring, the physical well-being of woman becomes an object of public interest and care in order to preserve the strength and vigour of' the race.
Still again, history discloses the fact that woman has always been depen--dent upon man. He established his control at the outset by superior physical strength, and his control in various forms, with diminishing intensity, has continued to the present. As minor, though not to the same extent, she has been looked upon in the Courts as needing, especial care that her rights may be preserved. Education was long denied her, and while now the doors of the schoolroom are opened and her opportunities for acquiring knowledge are great, yet even with that and the consequent increase of capacity for business affairs it is still true that in the struggle for subsistence she is not an equal competitor with her brother. Though limitations upon personal, and contractual rights may be removed by legislation, there is that; in her disposition and habits of life which will operate against a full assertion of those rights. She will still be where some legislation to protect her seems necessary to secure a real equality of right. Doubt less there are individual exceptions, and there are many respects in which she has an advantage over him ; but looking at it from the view-point of the effort to maintain an independent position in life, she is not upon an equality. Differentiated by these matters from the other sex, she is properly placed in a class by herself, and legislation designed for her protection may be sustained. It is impossible to close one's eyes to the fact that she still looks to ber--brother and depends upon him. Even though all restrictions on political, personal, and contractual rights were taken away, and she stood, so far as statutes are concerned, upon an absolutely equal plane with him, it would still be true that she is so constituted that she will rest upon and look to him for protection ; that her physical structure and a proper discharge of her maternal function having in view not merely her own health, but the well-being of the race-justify legislation to protect her from the greed as well as the passion of man. The limitations which this statute places, upon her contractual powers, upon her right to agree with her employer as to the time she shall labour, are not imposed solely for her benefit, but also largely for the benefit of all.
Many words cannot make this plainer. The two sexes differ in structure of body, in the functions to be performed by each, in the amount of physical strength, in the capacity for long-continued labour, particularly when done standing, the influence of vigorous health upon the future well- being of the fact, the self-reliance which enables one to assert full rights, and in the capacity to maintain the struggle for subsistence. This difference justifies a difference in legislation, and upholds that which is designed to compensate for some of the burdens which rest upon her."
In the light of the above passage we have no intention to limit the sphere of laws and provisions which can be made for protection of womea and children, but just to give certain illustrations we think that (a) pro--vision for maternity relief for women ; (b) provision for free education for--girls and children, and (c) provision for separate accommodation and entrance etc. For women and children at places of public resort etc. Will not: be violative of equality clause in any manner and we would conclude that inter alia the provision for reserving certain seats for women for admission in Medical Colleges are all steps for the protection of that class and cannot; therefore, be said to be illegal in any manner especially when it cannot be denied that medical education not only intends to procure protec----tion of the person who is educated but also of those whom he is to treat after completing his studies and joining the profession. At dais stage reference may also be made to Jai Chand R.I v. State of Punjab (AIR 1955 Him. Pra. 9 which was a case under East Punjab University Act where the Senate was empowered to make regulations providing for the courses of the studies to be followed and the conditions to be complied with by the candidates for any University examination, The relevant rules gave a list of compulsory -subjects. One of the compulsory subjects was a classical language or Hindi, Punjabi, French or German, European, Anglo-Indian and women candidates could offer Urdu but no other candidates. It was contended that the University had made a discrimination on the basis of sex alone and thereby infringed the equality clause. It was held that the classification made by the University was neither arbitrary nor capricious. In Amjali Roy v. State of West Bengal and others (AIR 1962 Cal. 822 Bose, J. Held that setting up a new College for women and making provisions for students of that College to receive lectures in another College was in no way illegal. Tile whole object behind this scheme, it was held, was to promote the development of the -new College for women and ultimately to make it a well- established and self-sufficient organisation for the education of women. In other words it was a special provision as contemplated by Article 15 (3) of the Indian Constitu--tion which had been made in the interest of and for the benefit of women =students in the country. The contention raised for all these reasons and in the face of the above-quoted law is hereby repelled.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that these writ petitions have no merit and are dismissed with no order as to costs.