Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. D‑543 of 1984, decided on 23rd October, 1985.

---‑Art.199‑‑Prospectus of Medical Colleges of Sind for year (1983‑84), paras. 2 (iii) & 7‑‑Admission in Medical College‑‑Eligibility of candidate‑‑Prescribed time limit for filing of supporting evidence of status and eligibility of candidate not relating to his inherent qualifications, held, would not warrant interpretation that such time limit should be so religiously and rigidly observed so as to Subject substantive right of candidate to production of such documents within that limited time schedule‑‑In appropriate cases Selection Board could relax that time limit and allow further time to candidate to file such documents.‑‑[ Educational institution].

Malik M. Saeed for Petitioner.

Arif. Hussain for the Selection Board.

S.Safdar Hussain, Abul Khair and Attaur‑Rehman ‑for the Contesting Respondents.

Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, A.A.‑G. for the Sind Govt.

Date of hearing: 23rd October, 1985.

.‑‑By this petition the petitioner has challenged the decision of the "Selection Board of Admission in the .Medical Colleges of Sind" refusing to admit the petitioner to a Medical College in Sind.'

In the year 1983‑84 the petitioner appeared in her Intermediate examination and passed this examination in 1st Division obtaining 70% marks, thus qualifying herself to seek admission in a Medical College. Unfortunately, all the candidates aspiring admission in a Medical College are not admitted because of the limited number of seats available. These seats are filled in on the basis of competitive merits of the candidates. In the year 1983‑84, 281 seats were available which were to be filled on the basis of percentage of marks obtained by the candidates. It is not denied, that the petitioner in spite of her 1st Division could not claim a seat out of this limited quota. Her number in the merits list was far below than the 281 seats which were available.

The Selection Board constituted to interview the candidates called the candidates for interview to fill in the seats available. The petitioner was one of them and she appeared before the Board and according to her, position after the interview was at No.287 against the 281 seats available for that year. On the position stated above the petitioner could not and indeed has not claimed any right for admission in the College. The basis of her claim raised in this petition is that all the candidates who were called for interview and who were ultimately selected had to file certain documents alongwith their applications within a specified time mentioned in the admission rules. The contention raised is that some 8 or so candidates failed to file these documents alongwith their applications. As such they forfeited their right to be admitted in the Medical College. The documents which were to be filed alongwith the application under Rule 7 are Matriculation Certificate, Matriculation Marks Sheet, Intermediate Science Marks Sheet, B.Sc. Marks Sheet, if the candidate wants to be considered on, B.Sc. merits, M.Sc. Certificate, if any,. Permanent. Resident Certificate (Form 'C'), Domicile Certificate of the candidate or Domicile Certificate of the candidate's father or mother as the case may be, an affidavit countersigned by a 1st Class Magistrate in support of the Permanent Resident Certificate, candidate's National Identity Card and six photographs (passport size).

A casual look at this long list of documents is enough to indicate that they are merely the supporting evidence of the status and eligibility of the candidate and do not relate to the inherent qualifications of the candidate concerned. In the very nature of things, the object of prescribing a period of time for filing these documents is to clear the question of final selection when the candidate appears before the Selection Board. There seems to be no reason to interpret that this time prescribed in the Rule should be so religiously and rigidly observed as to subject the substantive right of a candidate to the production of documents within this limited time schedule. In appropriate cases the Selection Board may relax this limit and allow further time to the candidate to file these documents. For instance if a candidate is not able to produce some original but is able to satisfy the Board, either by Gazette notification or other equally authentic evidence of the truth of his claim, the Board may in appropriate case treat it to ‑be a proper compliance of the Rule.

We need not dilate on this point any further because a counter‑affidavit has been filed by the Incharge Students Section Dow Medical College and this allegation is specifically denied. In para. 6 of the counter‑affidavit it is stated:‑‑

"6. With regard to the contents of paragraphs 6, .7, 8 and 9 of the petition are Concerned, I say that the same are not correct inasmuch as the petitioner did not qualify for admission on merit. I say that the criteria for admission in the First Year M. B.B.S. Class is only merit. I say that all the candidates who have been admitted in First Year M.B.B.S. Class had submitted complete documents before the date of interview as required by the rules and the same were verified and found in order. I say that the petitioner has not been excluded illegally but she was not admitted because marks secured by her were less than the last candidate admitted for admission."

The above seems to be a complete answer to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The technical merits of this argument apart the petitioner has not even been able to specify the candidates who, according to her, had failed) to comply with the formalities of filing these documents alongwith their applications. As such the allegation is even otherwise not sustainable.

Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner half‑heartedly argued that some candidates who were selected by the Selection Board have taken admission in Agha Khan Medical College or elsewhere and as such her condition improved from position 287 to 275. This objection is also answered by the Incharge of the Students section in para.4 of his counter‑affidavit, according to which these vacancies were also filled by candidates having higher percentage than the petitioner and as such no grievance could be raised on this count as well.

The last contention was that some seats have lately become vacant on account of migration of one or two candidates, who were selected and had joined the courses but have now left and the petitioner can very well be accommodated in one of those vacancies. The learned counsel fails to realise that the class of 1983‑84 has by now gone up to a higher class and any vacancy occurring now or later cannot be filled in by the candidate left behind, because it cannot be visualised that a candidate left out at the time of admission to the First Year Class should be allowed to join that class now when the class has progressed to second or the third year.

There is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.

H.B.T Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.