' Through this single order I propose to dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.9070, 9090, 9047, 9064, 9083, 9058, 9115 and 9126 of 2002. Out of these writ petitions, Writ Petitions Nos.9115 and 9126 of 2002 are filed today, in which the learned A.A.-G. Has been called upon to assist the Court alongwith other connected matters. All these cases are being treated as "Pacca" cases, with the concurrence of learned counsel for the parties.
2. Brief facts of the cases are that the petitioners in all these cases had appeared in the F.Sc. Pre- Medical Examination and had qualified their examination by securing either 65% or more marks but in all cases less than 70% marks. The respondents issued a prospectus for A admission in the Medical Colleges in Punjab through entry test to be held on 15-12-2002. A prerequisite was also given in the said prospectus that only those students who had secured 70% or more marks in F.Sc.
Pre-Medical examination, would be entitled to appear in the entry test.
3. Precise grievance of the petitioners is that the revise in the qualification for appearance in the Entry Test from 65% to 70% is contrary to law on the following grounds:--
(i) That the change in the requirement of 65% to 70% was brought in after the petitioners had appeared in their F.Sc. Examination, therefore, they have been taken by surprise after the Announcement of their result that the requirement has been raised from 65% to 70%. In this behalf it is further added that since last year the target which was fixed by the respondents for appearance in entry test was of obtaining 65% marks, therefore, keeping in view that target, the petitioners had been putting in their labour to achieve the same. The late decision taken by the respondents for enhancing the required percentage has deprived the petitioners from their appearance in entry test, although, according to earlier requirement, they were fully qualified to attempt the entry test;
(ii) That the petitioners tried their level best to submit their application forms but the same were not being received by the respondents on the ground that no application can be entertained unless the candidate is having 70% marks;
(iii) That the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court at the Principal Seat in Writ Petition No,19426 of 2002 was given on a concessional statement made by the Chairman Admission Board, according to which some candidates having marks less than 70% upto the range of 65% have been granted permission to join the entry test. This statement brings a change in the policy, whereby, the petitioners and many others, in the Province of Punjab, who had obtained 65% or more marks have been deprived of being treated equally. Thus by virtue of Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution the petitioners are entitled to equal protection.
(iv) That it is not necessary for every citizen to approach the Court for getting his right. It is the duty of the State and its functioneries to deliver the rights of the citizens at their door steps. It is last resort for a citizen to approach the Court for getting relief, if he is being denied by the concerned authorities. Therefore, the question whether anybody has approached the Court or not is irrelevant.
If a right exists for a certain class of citizens, it must be extended for each and every one, authorities cannot draw a line to discrimination as against those who had approached the Court.
(v) It is further submitted that in all the other three Provinces, the basic requirement for appearance of candidates in the entry test is 60% or above. On this short point as well, it is argued that the students of Province of Punjab are being discriminated from rest of the country.
4. On the other hand, learned A.A.-G. Has seriously opposed these petitions. He contends that the cut-off date fixed by the respondent Board for submission of application was 31-10-2002. If the petitioners were not. Satisfied with the condition of enhancement of required number of percentage of marks, they should have approached the Court well in time. Thus, who were aggrieved of this variation in policy had approached the Court well in time at the Principal Seat and accordingly, the relief was given to them, although, on the concessional statement but that concessional statement was made by the Chairman Board keeping in view the fact that if this litigation goes on, some practical difficulties, in holding of entry test and further start of First Year MBBS Session may be delayed. The difficulty which is being highlighted by the learned A.A.-G. Is that in the previous year a number of candidates had applied for the entry test and it was practically impossible for the respondents to manage the entry test under a roof. To avoid and unforeseen weather (rain) hazard it was therefore decided by raising the requirement of percentage marks the authorities intend to reduce the number of candidate, so that the entry test could be held under the roof. It is next contended that since all the petitioners had approached this Court after the target date ice, 31-10-2002, therefore, their case is hit by the principle of laches and they are not entitled to any relief. It is also added that change of percentage of marks/requirement for appearance in the entry test is a policy decision which does not require to be interfered by this Court in Constitutional jurisdiction. In the same direction it is further added that a policy decision can he made by the competent authority at any 'point of time. The petitioners cannot claim any right that at what point of time a particular policy has to be formulated and announced by the competent authority. It is further added that admission to a Medical College is not a right, the respondent-Board has the authority to lay down the minimum qualification for that purpose each year according to its own requirement. Lastly, it is submitted that the same learned Division Bench who had dealt with the case i,e, Writ Petition No,19426 of 2002, also decided so many other cases on 15-11-2002 and the leading judgment was delivered in Writ Petition No,19887 of 2002. According to this judgment, those who had approached the Court after 31-10-2002, were not having any case worth consideration and the cut-off date given in both the judgments on the statement made by the Chairman Board was 11-11-2002. However, the Hon'ble Division Bench had permitted the receipt of applications up to 13-11-2002.
5. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties.
6. Before embarking upon the other merits of the cases, I would like to take note that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No,19426 of 2002 and Writ Petition No,19887 of 2002 was not given after considering the merits of the cases. Both these decisions are based entirely on the statement made by the Chairman Admission Board, while the instant cases are being contested by the parties on their own merits.
7. The Chairman Board after making statement before the learned Division Bench by giving relief to the petitioners before their Lordships in the Division Bench had brought a major change in the policy announced, whereby, no application was to be received beyond 31-10-2002', of a candidate having less than 70% marks. If this change was to be brought, the same could not be restricted only to the extent of candidates who were petitioners before the Hon'ble Division Bench, it should include not only the present petitioners but all those students throughout Punjab, who had secured 65% or more marks to qualify for appearance in entry test. For this concession, it was incumbent upon the respondents to give it a wide publicity through Press, radio and television, so that every student could have fair opportunity to compete with the others. Attaching a classification for those who had approached the Court in time ice, before 31-10-2002, cannot be said to be a fair classification in a case like this. If there is any difficulty for the respondents to hold the entry test then the above- referred concessional statement should not have been given at all and the matter should have been contested on its own merits before the Hon'ble Division Bench. So far as the difficulty to hold entry test under a roof is concerned, can hardly be said to be a valid ground to refuse certain candidates a right to appear in the entry test. Depriving some students due to certain managerial problem of the respondent can hardly be a judicious decision.
8. It is not necessary for every citizen to approach the Court for any relief or his right. The entire structure of State is built with a sole object to protect the rights of citizens of the country. Every citizen should be given his due right at his door-step. It is only when a right is denied, then he has to approach the Court. It would create a bad impression on the new generation that they cannot get their right as a matter of right but for every right they will have to knock the door of the Court. Even otherwise discriminative decisions are volatile of principle of good governance.
9. Admittedly, last year, the target for appearance in entry test, which was given to the students was 65%. Apparently, no change was brought about in this target throughout the year, therefore, the young students, who had appeared in B.Sc. Examination were only mentally prepared to achieve that target, therefore, bringing about change after the B.Sc. Examination does materially affect the rights of the students as they were not apprised of any change to be brought in the admission policy. If this policy was to be changed, it could have been changed well in time, so that the students could know that what target they are required to achieve.
10. Although, admission in a medical college is not a right but to compete for admission is undoubtedly a right and of course laying down certain criteria/qualification to compete, is the right of the respondents but that right should only be exercised in accordance with law, fair play and well in time giving proper notice to the competitors.
11. No doubt, policy making is the prerogative of the Government and this Court would not ordinarily interfere in the policies framed by the Government, unless some vested right is receiving some injury because of change in a policy being brought at an abnormal time. In the instant case, the change in policy was brought in at a time, when the students were left with no choice and they could not either improve their marks percentage or do anything of the like nature to compete. It is also to be noted that from the next year, the entire syllabus for F.Sc. Pre-Medical has been changed by the Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education. Therefore, it would be a case of hardship for the students who had qualified their F.Sc. With a syllabus which is no more in the field and if they intend to improve their marks they will have to study entirely a new course.
12. In the judgments of the Humble Division Bench, it is to be noted that some writ petitioners had filed writ petitions even after the target date i,e, 31-10-2002, and they have also been granted relief for submission of their application forms till 13-11-2002. It is also to be noted that while appearing before the Humble Division Bench, no objection as to laches was taken with respect to those students who had filed their petitions after the target date i,e, 31-10-2002 by the respondents and relief was extended to those as well on the concessional statement of the Chairman Board, therefore, now they cannot raise such an objection in these petitions. So far as the present petitioners and the other students in the Province of Punjab are concerned, who have secured 65% and more marks were not given any notice to submit their application forms by 13-11-2002, therefore, it cannot be said that the attitude of the respondents towards other candidates was fair enough. I am unable to understand, as to on what basis the present petitioners and similarly placed other students of Province of Punjab could be discriminated by the respondents.
13. It is also to be noted that in all the other three Provinces of the country the minimum requirement for appearance in the entry tests is 60% of the F.Sc. Marks while in the Province of Punjab the respondents have raised the requirement to 70% without any valid justification and that too at a point of time when the candidates/students were left with no options.
14. For what has been stated above, I allow all these writ petitions, direct the respondents to fix a reasonable date through wide publicity in Press, radio and television calling upon all eligible candidates who have secured 65% or more marks to submit their application forms for appearance in entry test to be held on 15-12-2002. If the respondents feel that in these circumstances, they are not in position to arrange entry test on 15-12-2002, they may change the date, re-fix the same and publicize in accordance with law. No order as to costs.