TARIQ PARVEZ, J.--- Petitioner Saadia Abdul Qayum who is daughter of Dr. Abdul Qayum, a Medical Practitioner in allopathic medicines on securing overall merit score to the tune of 82.799, applied for admission in a Medical College of N.-W.F.P. against Category of "quota seats for the children of N.-W.F.P. Doctors" (Category-II).
'Respondent No.2 who had obtained overall merit score of 82.846, and is daughter of Dr. Latif Shah, employed in Health Department of Government of N.-W.F.P., and is presently posted in District Headquarter Hospital Abbottabad also applied for admission. She was given admission in Ayub Medical College Abbottabad in the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) selected against Category-II, i.e. "Children of Doctors of N.-W.F.P.". Aggrieved of the denial of admission to the petitioner and instead admission given to respondent No.2, the present petition has been filed.
2. The moot question in this case is if the two categories of doctors i.e., "Doctors of N.-W.F.P." and "Doctors employed' in the Health Department of N.-W.F.P." are at par as for admission to the Medical College is concerned. To resolve the issue, a reference is made to the Admission Policy for Medical and Dental Colleges' for the year 1999-2000 of Government of N.-W.F.P:, Health Department and at page 3 of the policy the detail of distribution of admission seats is given and heading at serial No.5 allocates "Special quota seats" whereas at Sub. S.No.VII "Seats for Children of N.-W.F.P.
Doctors" are detailed and there is one seat for M.B.,B.S. in Khyber Medical College, one seat of M.B.,B.S. in Ayub Medical College and one seat of B.D.S. in Ayub Medical College whereas at Sub.
S.No.VIII "Children of Doctors in N.-W.F.P. Health Department" are allocated one seat of M.B.,B.S. in Khyber Medical College.
At page 8 of the Policy, the eligibility of candidates required for admission to such reserved seats is given in Clause (d) with heading "Quota seats for the Children of N.-W.F.P. Doctors". The first requisite is that a doctor for the purposes of this para. means "a qualified Medical Practitioner in allopathic medicines registered with Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (P.M.D.C.)" and that the candidate as well as his parents must be domicile of N.-W.F.P./FATA. There is also given a further subdivision of N.-W.F.P. Doctors by making two categories of which Category-I pertains to "seats for doctors employee of Government of N.-W.F.P. " while Category-II is in respect of "Seats for other doctors".
Under Category-I the condition precedent for the eligibility of a candidate is that the doctor must be on active service, retired or deceased but having at least three years regular continuous service and also includes children of parents who were doctors but have resigned in routine after putting ten years of continuous service, whereas, under Category-II the eligibility is, children of all the doctors of N.-W.F.P. or FATA domicile who fulfils the conditions as given against para.d(1)(2).
3. The submission of form by the petitioner and admission to respondent No.2 given against "quota seats for the children of N.-W.F.P. Doctors" is not denied by the College Authorities. They have filed their written comments and the stance taken by them for refusal of admission to the petitioner is that her father is a Medical Graduate but is not a recognized Medical Practitioner in N.-W.F.P., and that when asked to produce a registration certificate of being a Medical Practitioner under N.- W.F.P., Registration of Private Medical Institution Ordinance, 1984, the same could not be produced.
To the contrary the case of the petitioner is that her father is not only M.B.,B.S. Graduate but they are domicile of N.-W.F.P., and that her father is not employed in the Health Department of Government of N.-W.F.P., and stands registered with Pakistan Medical and Dental Council with Registration No.59-N wayback on 19-11-1963 which registration for the time being is valid up to 31-12-2003. The next contention by the petitioner is that the requirement of documentation as given at page 18 of the Policy does not require filing of a certificate of being General Practitioner or having its clinic etc., but the only required document is given against requirement "0" that is to say a copy of parents P.M.D.C. Registration Certificate, which has already been filed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have given our anxious consideration to the requirements of submission of forms and other documents required to be filed with the admission form by a candidate. The admitted facts are that the petitioner has secured 82.799 score in overall merit and she is daughter of a doctor who is not employed under the Health Department of Government of N.-W.F.P. and who is registered with the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council whereas the father of respondent No.2 who has been given admission is a doctor employed with the Government of N.-W.F.P.
The two categories of doctors namely, Private Practitioners and Doctors employed in the Government Departments have been specifically distinguished on page 8 of the Admission Policy.
In case of seeking admission against Category-I i.e., "Doctors Employee of Government", the requirement and the pre-condition is three years regular service in case of a doctor in active service, retired or deceased and 10 years continuous service where the parents have resigned from the service while for applying against Category-II the requirement is the registration of the parents doctors with Pakistan Medical and Dental Council and domicile of N.-W.F.P., or FATA. With the application form filed against either category, the requirement "0" at page 18 is filing of a copy of P.M.D.C. Registration.
A reference to page 18 Clause-p would show that candidates seeking admission in the Medical College against Category-I i.e., "Children of Doctors of Health Department" etc., are required to file service/entitlement certificate of their parents, hence there is a categorical and clear-cut distinction of requirements asked for from candidate of the two categories.
There is no mention in the entire Policy where a certificate of being General Practitioner under Ordinance, 1984 is required.
5. The interpretation that has been put forth and that has been applied by the Joint Admission Committee i.e., respondent No.1 or respondent No.3 by relying on requirement as given against Category-II at page 8 of the Policy which is to the effect:- "However, first right on these seats shall be that of General Practitioner not employed by the Government."
It is contended by the respondents that applying this requirement and eligibility, the inter se merit of candidates of Category-I and Category-II is to be prepared and out of such merit list, the prior right would be that of the children of General Practitioner not employed by the Government if there is inter se tie between the two candidates and as respondent No.2 was higher on merits as against the petitioner and because the petitioner could not produce General Practitioner Certificate, she was held not entitled to admission.
6. We fail to agree with the interpretation put forth by the respondents. The language of Policy is abundantly clear. Para.d at page 8 describes the requisite eligibility in para.2 for the children of N.- W.F.P., Doctors while Category-II deals with seats for other doctors, other than those doctors who are not employees of Government of N.-W.F.P., would mean that while framing the policy, the Policy makers intended that the doctors who are not in service of the Government in the Health Department, their interest shall also be protected and, therefore, Category-II was coined. The purpose of heading of "giving priority to the children of General Practitioners" is with the object that there may be a doctor employed in some other Government Departments other than the Health Department like Social Security etc., and at times there may appear a situation that a candidate child of such doctor and a candidate child of a General Practitioner secured either equal marks or of the same age then preference in case of equality has been extended to the children of General Practitioner so to keep the very scheme of induction of the children of a doctor not employed in Government Departments and their representation effective as for admissions to Medical College is concerned.
7. We, in view of clear language of Policy for admission given under para.d at page 8 read with requirements given at page 18 of the Policy for documentation, are firm in our view that the petitioner is falling under Category-II while respondent No.2 was covered under Category-I both being distinct and separate for their independent allocation of quota of seats, therefore, the denial of admission by respondents 1 and 3 to the petitioner A was illegal and wrong. Accordingly, we direct respondents Nos.1 and 3 to give admission to the petitioner in the B.D.S. on the basis of her merit, if she otherwise on overall merit has scored the numbers which entitle her to the admission against other candidates.
8. While parting this case, we also observe that as for respondent No.2 is concerned who has been given admission and she was not entitled to admission on a seat allocated for Category-II as she falls against Category-I but because she secured the admission not through misrepresentation or by committing fraud or misstatement and she was not at fault but respondents 1 and 3 while so construing the interpretation of different categories of the doctors, her admission, if possible, be regularized so that her academic career and session is not wasted. Our recommendations for adjusting respondent No.2 are not mandatory but directive with a view to save spoiled one precious academic year of respondent No.2. This writ petition is, therefore, allowed but no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.