SHAMSUDDIN Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB
The petitioner passed the Intermediate Examination (Pre‑medical) from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan (Supplementary, 1984) and obtained 732 marks out of total 1100 marks. The petitioner also undertook the N . C . C. training and as such was entitled to be added 20 additional marks as ‑such his total marks came to 752. He sought admission in the Medical College and did not succeed in getting admission because according to the merit list prepared by the authorities all the seats available stood exhausted by the other applicants for admission who occupied the higher position in the list. The petitioner has challenged the action of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, of declaring the merit of petitioner wrongly and as a consequence thereof depriving him of getting admission in the Medical College. The writ petition has been contested and a written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2.
2. Learned A . A .‑G . also appeared in response to the call of the Court who filed the written statement and stated that he would argue the case though formal sanction for his appearance was still awaited.
3. Learned A . A . ‑G . submitted that the merits of the petitioner have been correctly determined. The petitioner passed Supplementary. Matriculation Examination in 1982 and passed F.Sc. (Medical Annual, 1986). According to the learned A.A.‑G. under Rule 22, 35 marks were to be deducted from the total marks of 752 obtained by the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner shall be deemed to have obtained 717 marks and as such was not qualified to get admission on merits as the last student admitted according to the merits list had obtained 724 marks.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner argued that only 25 marks were to be deducted under the said rule as such the petitioner shall be deemed to have obtained 727 marks and his merit position should have been fixed accordingly.
5. The decision of this case centres around the correct interpretation of the relevant Rule 22 which is hereby reproduced in extenso for ready reference:‑
(22) Rules for working out merit of candidates :
The following marks shall be added or deducted from the total marks of the candidates in order to prepare the final merit list: ‑
(a) Twenty (20) marks shall be added for National Cadet Corps Training for a person who has completed the training or, having successfully completed not less than seventy‑five per cent of the total training period and is still undergoing training.
(b) Ten (10) marks shall be deducted for every extra chance available for F.Sc. examination whether availed or not, 2 years after passing the Matriculation Examination (S . S . C . E .) . However, for the last supplementary F.Sc. Examination, whether availed or not, five (5) marks shall be deducted.
6. The question is whether as a matter of interpretation of this Rule, 35 marks are to be deducted from the marks obtained by the petitioner as has been done by the Authorities or 25 marks are to be deducted in order to determine the merit position of the petitioner as is being pleaded on behalf of the petitioner. Learned A . A .‑G . submitted that irrespective of the fact that the petitioner passed Supplementary Matriculation Examination of 1982, he should be notionally considered to have passed that examination in the year 1982 and whole of that year should be counted in computing the period of two years on the expiry of which the marks are to be deducted for every extra chance. In amplification of his argument he maintained that the petitioner should be deemed to have passed Annual Examination 1982 and as such the initial period would last upto Annual Examination of 1984 as such for supplementary examination of the same year 10 marks are to be deducted and thereafter 10 marks for each chance upon Annual Examination 1986 which the petitioner passed shall be deducted according to the said rule and total 35 marks were to be deducted from his total marks and the petitioner's merit position was correctly determined by the authorities.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner has contested the correctness of the said arguments. According to him the plain reading of the relevant rules is opposed to this formula as has been suggested by the learned A.A.‑G.
8. I have considered the arguments of both the sides. The argument of the learned A.A.‑G. that the period of two years should be computed from Annual Examination of 1982 though the petitioner passed Supplementary Matriculation Examination, cannot be upheld without doing violence to the plain language employed in the rule. There is no warrant for adopting such an interpretation of the rule.
The relevant rule treats Annual and Supplementary Examinations of different footings inasmuch as for availaing the chance of ever. supplementary examination, marks are to be separately deducted. The period of two years is to be counted with reference to the examination which a student has passed. In this case the petitioner admittedly passed supplementary matriculation examination in 1982, therefore, from that stage the period of two years is to be computed which will end with supplementary examination of 1984 and it is thereafter that for every chance which the petitioner would have availed 10 marks are to be deducted of course for first supplementary examination only 5 marks are to be deducted. This interpretation is in accord with the express provisions of the rule, therefore, I uphold the same. In this manner only 25 marks were to be deducted from the total marks of 752 obtained by the petitioner in order to determine his merit position and in accordance with this formula he shall be deemed to have obtained 727 marks and was entitled to get admission accordingly. The argument of the learned A.A.‑G. that notionally the petitioner could be treated to have passed Annual Matriculation Examination for computing the initial period of two years as according to him that was the intention of the rule maker is only speculative. There is no such indication in the rule itself. The intention is to be gathered from the words used in the rule and what is not expressed in words is to be taken as not intended.
9. The matter can be viewed from another angle. Even if two interpretations; one going in favour of the petitioner and the other to the contrary were possible, even then according to well‑settled principles of interpretation of such a statute or the rule, the interpretation which goes in favour of the citizen or to his benefit is to be adopted: This is apart from the fact that in this case the rule is very clear which does not admit of any other interpretation than what has been held above. This interpretation is also in accord with the departmental interpretation of the rule in the case of the petitioner when he sought admission to the First Year B.D.S. Class of the de Montmorency College of Dentistry, Lahore and Dental Section Nishtar Medical College, Multan, for the Sessions 1986‑87 and the petitioner's merit position was calculated accordingly and after deducting 25 marks from his total marks of 752 his merit position was fixed according to 727 marks.
10. In view of what has been held above the action of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in refusing admission to the petitioner and not determining his merit position according to 727 marks is violative of the rule, therefore, the same cannot be upheld. The writ petition succeeds, the impugned action of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is hereby declared to have been taken without lawful authority and of C no legal effect on the rights of the petitioner and the same is hereby quashed. Since the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have been granted admission by the authorities, therefore, there being no fault of their own, they cannot also be allowed to be prejudiced by wrongful act of the Authorities. Therefore, I would direct that without ousting them and disturbing their educational career the petitioner should be given admission and accommodated as a special case. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.
H . B . T . / S‑202/ L Petition accepted.