2020 M L D 1510
[Balochistan]
Before Abdul Hameed Baloch, J
TOOBA SAEED ---Petitioner
Versus
CHAIRMAN, ADMISSION COMMITTEE BOLAN
UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL AND SCIENCES QUETTA
BALOCHISTAN and 3 others ---Respondents
Constitutional Petition No.1437 of 2019, decided on 13th February, 2020.
Educational institution ---
----Admission in MBBS Programme ---Requirements ---Petitioner appeared in the entry test of
Medical and Dental College Admission Test and obtained 99 out of 200 marks ---Petitioner
was refused admission as she could not secure 50% marks in the entry test ---Validity ---
Provincial Admission Committee of Balochistan University of Medical and Health Sciences
had agreed to reduce the eligibility criteria of 60% for Medical and Dental College
Admission Test to that of 50% for Balochistan, which had been approved by the Syndicate of
University--- Petitioner had secured 99 marks out of 200 marks which were less than 50% ---
Petitioner had claimed admission in Balochistan University of Medical and Health Scien ces
on special consideration which was not permissible under the law ---Prospectus, rules and
regulations framed by the public educational institution were administrative policy applicable to all the candidates without any discrimination ---Universities auth orities in academic
matters were the best judge to interpret the rules and regulations framed by the University ---
Court was to avoid to interpret the said rules unless a case of grave injustice had been made out---Petitioner had not challenged the decision of Provincial Admission Committee of
Balochistan University of Medical and Health Sciences which had been approved by the Academic Council of said University ---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in
circumstances.
Muhammad Ilyas v. Bahaud din Zakariya University, Multan and another 2005
SCMR 961 and Fakharyar v. Agriculture University Peshawar PLD 2016 Pesh. 266 rel.
Juma Khan Mandokhail for Petitioner.
Khalid Sultan and Sohail Azam, Admin Officer Bolan University of Medical and
Science, Quetta for Resondents Nos.1 to 3.
Abdul Latif Kakar, AAG for Respondent No.4.
Date of hearing: 10th February, 2020.
JUDGMENT
ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J. ---This Constitutional Petition has been filed under
Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan ("the Constitution") with
the following prayers:
"In view of the above mentioned circumstances, it is therefore, very humbly prayed that under the circumstances narrated and mentioned above, the respondent very kindly be directed to consider the application of the petitioner in the interest of justice and equity.
Any other, relief which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded."
2. Brief facts of the instant petition are that pursuant to the advertisement made by the
respondent No.1 the petitioner applied for the Medical and Dental College Admission Test (MDCAT), whereby the following admission criteria was set:
* FSC Marks (for Balochistan) 65%
* MDCAT (2019- 2020) 50%
That the Petitioner appeared in the entry test and obtained 99 marks out of 200, which
stand as 49.5% and as per international standards 49.50% marks are always read as 50% in round figure, which makes the petitioner eligible for the admission; that the respondent vide its advertisement No.PID(Q)5 31/19 invited applications for the Self -Finance category seats
and it was stated that a candidate is eligible to apply for admission if he or she has passed the entrance test of any University of Pakistan; that the respondent published another advertisemen t bearing NO.P1D(Q) 530/19, whereby it was stated that a candidate who has
passed MDCAT 2019- 2020, is eligible for the admission and petitioner has passed the
MDCAT, even the petitioner also appeared in Higher Education Aptitude Test (HAT) held on 13th Oct ober, 2019 conducted by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (HEC)
and passed the same for the admission of Medical College; that the petitioner moved an application on the name of the Chairman, Admission Committee and appraised the entire situation and prayed for considering her for admission, but in vain, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner secured 99 marks out of
200 marks and obtained more than 49%, but the respondent No.1 has denied admission to petitioner in BUMHC; that it is the responsibility of the BUMHS to conduct the entry test but failed to do so and the test was conducted by the University of Health Sciences, Lahore (UHS); that the entry test was completely out of course; that the petition er belongs to remote
area of Balochistan and it is responsibility of the respondents to promote the education in Balochistan specially in remote areas.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 2 stated that the petitioner daughter's
has failed to p ass the MDCAT exam and the FSc marks cannot be considered for the
admission; that as per rule and regulation of admission policy the petitioner is not eligible for
the admission of MBBS/BDS and the MDCAT is mandatory for admission.
5. I have heard the lear ned counsel for the parties, learned AAG and have perused the
record with their able assistance. The perusal of record reveals that the Pakistan Medical Council (PMC) has decreased the passing marks for MDCAT from 60% to 50%. It is worthwhile to mention he re that the Provincial Admission Committee of BUMHS agreed to
reduce the eligibility criteria of 60% for MDCAT to that of 50% for Balochistan, which was also approved by the Syndicate of the BUMHS. The PMC also endorsed the decision of the Syndicate of BUH MS. It would be appropriate to reproduce the decision of the PMC in its
meeting held on 06.12.2019:
"Provincial Admission Committee Meeting was held on 14th October 2019. Registrar, PMDC attended the meeting. In the meeting it was discussed that still Bal ochistan is
having peculiar situation which requires special attention. The results of MDCAT 2019- 20 were presented before the members which revealed that only 608 candidates
qualified to be admitted in medical and dental institutions as they secured 60% a bove
marks in MDCAT 2019 -20, against 400 seats including new medical colleges still not
recognized by PMDC. Which limits the selection of students as the pattern of selection in Balochislan is quota based. In some of the districts hardly a single or even no candidate reached to qualifying level, hence in such districts the seats would
remain vacant. It would be a great loss for the province. It was proposed to decrease the threshold from 60% to 50%, to ensure availability of candidates for competition. Brig. Hafeez, Registrar, PMDC also in principle agreed to the proposal. From this
house same proposal is to be approved so that the merit based result be declared to finalize admission process within the time line set by PMDC. The members also agreed with the proposal of the Vice Chancellor."
6. Admittedly the petitioner secured 99 marks out of 200 which is less than 50%. The
petitioner claimed admission in BUMHS on special consideration, which is not permissible under the law. In the advertisement published by the respondent No.l inviting application
from the eligible candidate, clearly shows the criteria/condition laid down for the eligibility of the candidates in the following manner:
"1. Eligibility.
1. (a) …..…….
(b) ………….
2. It is mandatory far candidat es of Balochistan province to appear in MDCAT for
admission to any public sector Medical/Dental College/institution of the province."
7. The prospectus, rules and regulation framed by the public educational institution are
administrative policy of the respective institute, recognized and made applicable to all the
candidates without any discrimination. It is to be noted that in academic matters the
University authorities are the best judges to interpret the Rules and Regulations framed by the university aut horities. The Courts are required to avoid to interpret the same unless a case
of grave injustice is made out otherwise it would become difficult for the universities to run their affairs. Reliance in this regard is placed on a judgment of the honorable Su preme Court
of Pakistan reported as Muhammad Ilyas v Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan and
another (2005 SCMR 961), wherein it has been held that: --
"5. We have heard the learned counsel and have also gone through the relevant
regulation. At the outse t it may be noted that as far as the rules/regulations framed by
the University Authorities for the purpose of conductive/regularizing examination etc. of University are concerned these are required to be interpreted by the University Authorities itself an d Courts should avoid to interpret the same unless a case of grave
injustice is not made out otherwise it would become difficult for Univercity administration to run its internal affairs relating to examination, etc. Further, a perusal of Regulation 8(F) a nd its other parts clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was
required to obtain (CGPA) independently in each Semester for the purpose of promotion to the next Semester. As it has been pointed out hereinabove that the petitioner did not obtain requisite ( CGPA) in the 3rd Semester i.e. 2.00 (CGPA),
therefore, University Authorities in exercise of power conferred upon them under Regulation 8(F) rightly removed his name from the roll. The learned I.C.A. Bench after examining the case of petitioner in depth re ached to the conclusion that he was
required to obtain 2.00 CGPA in the 3rd Semester, therefore, his name was rightly removed from the roll of University as impugned judgment is just and legal, therefore, no interference is called for this Court in exercis e of jurisdiction under
Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan."
In this regard reliance is also placed on the case of Fakharyar v. Agriculture
University Peshawar PLD 2016 Peshawar 266.
8. The objection raised by the petitioner that test was conducted by the UHS purely
based on Panjab Text Book Board pattern has no force in it for the reasons that in this regard the petitioner has not filed any application during test. The objection of the petitioner is afterthought cannot benefit the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has not challenged the decision of the Admission Committee of BUHMS which was approved by the Academic Council of BUHMS on 11.11.2019 and endorsed by the PMC on 06.12.2019 as referred above. The deviati on from the policy open the flood gate, therefore, for the strengthening of
institution the policy should be followed and deviation from the same would cause disrespect the institution.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred Regulation 9 and i ts sub -regulation
(2) of the notification issued by the PMDC in exercise of power conferred by Subsection(2) of Section 33 of the PMDC Ordinance 1962 (XXXII of 1962), but the same has no relevancy with the case of the petitioner.
In view of above, this petition is dismissed.
ZC/41/Bal. Petition dismissedThis judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.