The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner is a son of Medical Practitioner Dr. Gulzar Muhammad. Previously a quota was reserved for the children of doctors admission in the Medical Institutions of the Province. However, the said provision has been done away within the prospectus for the year 1999-2000 and the position as it stands today is that there is no such quota for the children of the Medical Practitioners for seeking admissions in the Medical Colleges. Petitioner appeared in the F.Sc. Examination/Pre-Medical and secured 756 marks plus 20 marks of NCC, total being 776 marks out of 1100. Petitioner also submitted admission form to get admission in any Medical institution of the Province. He appeared in the entry test held under the control of K.E. Medical College, Lahore and secured 386 marks in the said entry test. Petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid amendment/omission of the Medical Teachers quota in the prospectus filed this writ petition with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the writ petition may be allowed and a direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for admission in M.B.,B.S. on the basis of being a son of a Doctor taking into consideration the marks obtained in F.Sc.
Pre-Medical plus marks obtained by passing out National Cadet Guards."
The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that in a similar circumstance Miss Faiza Aslam filed C.M. No.54 of 2000 in C.P. No.123 of 2000 and respondents were directed to give provisional admission to Miss Faiza Aslam subject to the fate of the appeal. He further submits that Maham Niazi filed Writ Petition No.330 of 2000 in which respondents were directed to give provisional admission to Maham Niazi vide order, dated 7-3-2000.
2. Learned Assistant Advocate-General submits that admission in Medical Colleges of the Punjab are regulated through the prospectus framed by the competent Authority for the purpose of regulating admission in different Medical Colleges of Punjab. He further submits that there is no provision of seats of doctors' children in the prospectus in question for the Session 1999-2000. He further submits that quota was reserved for doctors' children prior to 1997-98 Session which had already been emerged in the open merit seats. Petitioner submitted admission form in one of the seat in the open merit seats and appeared in entry test/admission test in terms of prospectus of the Session 1999-2000. He further highlighted that during the admission of the Session 1998-99 five seats for Medical Teachers' children was made in the prospectus under the direction of this Court's order, dated 25-3-1998 in Writ Petition No.3772 of 1998 in anticipation of the approval of competent Authority but the competent Authority did not approve the seats for Medical Teachers' children.
Medical Teachers' children being aggrieved filed Writ Petition No.178 of 1999 before this Court for their admission against the Medical Teachers' Children seats which were shown in the prospectus for the Sessions 1998-99. The writ petition was accepted. The Government of the Punjab Health Department being aggrieved filed I.C.A. against the aforesaid order of this Court which was accepted. The Medical Teachers' children being aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court filed petition before the Honourable Supreme Court wherein the Honourable Supreme Court refused to grant interim relief to the Medical Teachers' children vide order, dated 10-8-1999 in C.P. No.1114/L of 1999 to 1118/L of 1999 and 1179/L of 1999. However, the leave was granted.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. It is settled proposition of law that our Constitution is based on trichotomy as per A principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Zia-ur-Rehman's case PLD 1973 SC 49 and Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif's case PLD 1993 SC 473. This Court has only power to interpret the law and has no power whatsoever to take the role of the policy-maker. It is settled principle of law that prospectus of respondents cannot be changed through verdict of Court. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the law laid down by this Court in Zaheer Aslam's case 1995 CLC 1152. It is also settled proposition of law that existence of rule of law as paramount consideration as per principle laid down by this Court in Rafaqat Javaid's case 1995 CLC 1155. The decision taken by the competent Authority to delete 5% doctors' children falls within the realm of policy making and this Court has no jurisdiction as mentioned above to take the role of the policy-maker as per D principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Zameer Ahmad's case PLD 1975 SC 667 and Zameer Ahmad's case 1978 SCMR 327. Learned counsel of the petitioner failed to point out any malice of respondents. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as per principle laid down in E Saeed Nawaz's case PLD 1981 Lah. 371. Petitioner appeared in the entry test in terms of the prospectus published by the competent Authority and the petitioner did not challenge the vires of the prospectus before appearing in the entry test. Therefore, petitioner is estopped to file this writ petition on F the well-known principle of estoppel and waiver as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ghulam Rasool's case PLD 1971 SC 376. It is also admitted fact that Division Bench of this Court has finally decided the controversy in the aforesaid I.C.A. It is settled principle of law', that the judgment of the Division Bench is binding upon the single Judge. RI" is also settled proposition of law that leave granting order by the Honourable 1H Supreme Court is not judgment as the law laid down by the Honourable' Supreme Court Adam Khan Mirza's case PLJ 1975 SC 21. It is pertinent to mention here that I have dismissed Writ Petition No.9015 of 2000 qua the same subject-matter I cannot change my view on the well-known principle of consistency as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Muzaffar Khan v. Muhammad Yusuf Khan PLD 1959 SC 9.
In view of what has been discussed above this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.