JUNAID INTZAR vs UHS and others

ORDER

' The noted Writ Petition No,13727 and Writ Petition No,14556 of 2008 are being disposed of together as both involve the common questions of law and facts.

2. Petitioner, in the petition, has been refused admission by respondent No,2, a Principal of a private medical college, for two reasons, one that he has not secured 65% marks as required to appear in the UHS entry test, and second having not passed the UHS entry test.

3. The factual backdrop of the case is very simple. The petitioner appeared in Pre-medical Group examination conducted by Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Islamabad and passed the same by securing 708 marks out of 1100 marks. He, thereafter, applied to respondent No,2, a private medical college, for an admission which, as mentioned above, has been declined to him for the above mentioned reasons. Counsel for the petitioner when questioned has conceded that the petitioner has not appeared in the entry test conducted by UHS on 14-9-2008.

However, his submission is that condition of the entry test and procurement of 65% marks cannot be retrospectively applied and that the petitioner when joined the pre-medical Group and passed the same had the legitimate expectations of getting an admission if he secured the contesting marks, which he has obtained. In support of this contention that vested right cannot be taken away retrospectively. Reliance has been placed on cases reported as Sh. Rahmatullah v. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Centre A Karachi and others (PLD 1963 SC 633) and Ch. Nazir Ahmad Cheema Advocate v. Mr. M.B. Zaman, Advocate General (PLD 1975 SC 1). It is further submitted that the petitioner was provisionally permitted to appear in the entry test by this Court vide order, dated 15-10-2008 which he has passed. A seat is available in the college of respondent No,2 and there is no other contestant, therefore, on compassionate grounds, admission can be allowed to the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent UHS, on the other hand, has submitted that the condition of securing 65% marks in the exam and the condition of passing the UHS entry test has not affected any right of the petitioner, the above was the policy decision of the UHS and before any one could apply for the admission these conditions were fully published. Only for the reason that the petitioners have passed the pre-medical examination by itself does not clothe them with any right which can be enforced in law. He has relied upon case reported as Mian Muhammad Afzal v. Province of Punjab and others (PLD 2004 SC 1570).

4. Heard. We are not convinced that only by passing Pre-medical examination a vested right has been created in favour of the petitioner and he necessarily is entitled to be admitted to a, may it be private, medical college without securing the requisite numbers and going through the procedure of entry test. Respondent UHS to which all the medical colleges are affiliated was well within its authority to lay down a policy of admission for a given year and thus exactly so has been done in instant case. By virtue of this no vested right of the petitioner has been infringed. The petitioner himself had lost the opportunity of appearing in the entry test conducted by UHS and has not offered any explanation in this regard. We are also not inclined to interfere in the matter on account A of compassionate grounds, as this is no reason for the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.

5. In the second writ petition though the petitioner has obtained equivalent to 65 % marks in the examination of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education for pre-medical group and appeared in the entry test conducted by UHS, but failed to qualify the same. Notwithstanding his marks, he, too for the reasons given above, is not entitled to admission.

' In the light of above, both the writ petitions have no merits and are hereby dismissed.