Miss RUKHSANA RASHID vs PRINCIPAL, KING EDWARD MEDICAL COLLEGE, LAHORE And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the denial of the petitioner's admission to the first M.B., B.S. class for the 1979-1980 session. The petitioner, daughter of a private medical practitioner, sought admission under a specific quota reserved for children of doctors. The core legal questions were whether the admission rules were applied retrospectively and whether the petitioner was illegally denied a seat within her category. The Supreme Court found that the admission rules were in operation prior to the session in question, and that the petitioner was rightfully denied admission because other candidates in her category possessed higher marks. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the High Court's refusal to exercise discretionary jurisdiction, noting that three years had elapsed since the academic session, and displacing students currently in their third year would be inequitable. The Court held that discretionary relief is inappropriate when significant time has passed and the merits of the underlying claim are factually unsupported.
- Can a court deny discretionary relief in an admission matter if significant time has elapsed since the academic session?
- Is it permissible to challenge admission rules on the basis of retrospective application if the rules were in effect prior to the application date?
- Does a candidate have a legal right to admission under a quota system if other candidates in the same category have higher merit marks?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J..-Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 14-2-1983, of the Lahore High Court; whereby the petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was candidate for admission to the first M. B., B. S. Class of Medical Colleges of Punjab for the session 1979-1980. She claimed the seat on the basis of a preference-being the daughter of a registered private medical practitioner, securing 613 marks in the F. Sc. (Pre-Medical)
3. Examination. The reliance for admission on above-noted preferential basis was placed on the following rules/directives regarding "doctors' children;- "(i) 10 seats for 'the'-children of the doctors of Medical Colleges and their affiliated hospitals in the Province of Punjab with 10 years service to their credit.
(ii) 10 seats for the children of doctors in Punjab Provincial Health Services with 10 years service to their credit.
(iii) 7 seats for the children of Registered Medical Practitioners of Punjab with 10 years standing to their credit.
(iv) 8 seats for the children of doctors in Punjab Provincial Local Bodies. Social Security Institutions etc. And doctors in the service of Central Government with the domicile of Punjab and doctors serving in the other provinces with domicile of Punjab with 10 years service to their credit."
4. The petitioner's candidature would. According to the learned counsel, be covered by category (iii), 7 seats were reserved for the children of Registered Medical Practitioners of Punjab, with 10 years standing to their credit. The petitioner was a candidate for one of these seats. As there were other candidates with higher marks in this category, therefore, she did not succeed in securing the admission, She accordingly sought relief in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Her writ petition was dismissed on merits on 4-12-1982. Not feeling satisfied she filed an intra --Court appeal which was dismissed on 14-2-1983, mainly, on the ground that in the meanwhile 3 years having passed since the session for which she had sought admission and that the students who might be displaced by her admission at this stage were already in the Third Year M. B., B. S. Class.
5. This circumstance was considered enough for not exercising a discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The merits of her appeal, on account of the aforementioned reasons were not examined.
6. It may be mentioned that the two main grievances raised before the learned Single Judge in the High Court from the petitioner's side were that the rules/directions specifying the number of seats in each category of doctor's children were introduced only in 1979-1980 session and that too after the date of the submission of the admission form and secondly that in her own category the petitioner could be granted a seat but was denied the same illegally. On both the points the finding of facts are against the petitioners.
7. The so-called rules continued in operation since at least a year before the session in question and thus the petitioner was aware of it when she sought admission on the basis of preference for doctor's children. It is also not denied that in her own category, namely, as a child of a private medical practitioner, she was rightly refused the admission because her marks were lower than those who were granted the admission.
8. Before closing this order, it needs to be mentioned that the learned counsel reliance on Miss Amtul Naseer Sami v. Secretary, Health, Government of Baluchistan and others (1975 SCMR 265), is in the circumstances of this case not of any help to the petitioner.
9. For all these reasons, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. This petition is accordingly dismissed.