SAJID ALI Versus PRINCIPAL AND CHAIRMAN, ACADEMIC COUNCIL AND SELECTION BOARD
NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.‑‑ Petitioner Sajid Ali son of Rahat Ali had passed his H.S.C. Part II (Pre‑Medical) 1986 from Sukkur Board and secured 739 marks and was placed in grade 'A'. According to the petitioner, he was also entitled to 20 marks for N . C . C . training making his total 759. He applied for admission to Chandka Medical College where 45 seats were reserved for boys domiciled in Sukkur. The last date for filing applications was 19‑2‑1987. The application for admission was filed and it was supported by the requisite documents. According to the petitioner, on the basis of the marks secured by the petitioner in the H.S.C. Part II examination, his name should have been at number 4 in the merit list and, therefore, he should have been admitted to the Medical College but when the final list was displayed sometime in the last week of May, 1987, it transpired that his name did not appear in the list. The petitioner, therefore, went to Larkana and made inquiries and he was told that there was a defect in his marks‑sheet in respect of H.S.C. Part II examination in which he had appeared in 1986 inasmuch as the name of his father was shown as 'Rahmat Ali' and as this did not tally with his other documents, his application was rejected. Thereafter, he got the marks‑sheet corrected. It appears that the mistake had been made by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sukkur while issuing the marks‑sheet. After getting the marks‑sheet corrected, the petitioner approached the respondents but admission was not granted to him apparently for the reason that in the meantime the admissions had already been finalized. In the circumstances, the present Constitutional Petition has been filed. We have heard Mr. Mohammad Sadik Kharal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi learned A . A . ‑G . for Principal, Chandka Medical College and Government of Sind, Mr. Kadir Bux Memon for the Sukkur Board and Mr. Abdul Fattah Malik who has appeared for respondent No.4, Mohammad Yakoob, who on the merit list is the last student to be admitted against the seats reserved for the boys from Sukkur and who is likely to be affected in case the present petition is allowed.
2. The entire emphasis of Mr. Mohammad Sadik Kharal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has been that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner and admittedly a mistake had been made in the office of the Sukkur Board while issuing the marks‑sheets to him where the name of his father was not correctly mentioned. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a case where the petitioner should not be made to suffer for the admitted mistake of the Board. During the arguments of Mr. Mohammad Sadik Kharal it transpired that the petitioner had obtained two marks‑sheets in respect of H.S.C. Part II examination, 1986 in which he had appeared. Both the marks‑sheet were obtained sometime during the end of 1986. The copy of marks‑sheet filed as Annexure 'B' to the petition shows that it is dated 25‑10‑1986. It was further informed by Mr. Mohammad Sadik Kharal that the other marks‑sheet gave the correct name of the father of the petitioner and on being asked as to the purpose of obtaining two marks‑sheets, Mr. Sadik Kharal, on instructions of the petitioner and his father who are present in Court, informed that the other marks‑sheet with the correct name of the father of the petitioner was sent, alongwith the application for admission of the petitioner, to Army Medical College, Rawalpindi.
It is an admitted position that the two marks‑sheets had been obtained try the petitioner some time in November, 1986. One marks‑sheet with the correct name of his father was used by the petitioner it the application sent for admission to Army Medical College. Rawalpindi. The other marks‑sheet remained in possession of the petitioner all along from November, 1986 till the same was filed in February 1987 along with the application for admission to Chandka Medical College and in this marks‑sheet the name of the father of the petitioner was not correctly mentioned. According to Mr. Sadik Kharal, this was not noticed by the petitioner and it was a case of oversight on the part of the petitioner. As observed earlier, the petitioner had the defective marks‑sheet in his possession for nearly three months. If he had noticed the discrepancy in the marks‑sheet, he could have got the same corrected from the Board before the date for filing / applications had expired or. 19‑2‑1987. But this was not done perhaps for the reason that this discrepancy was not noticed by the petitioner. Apparently, therefore, there is an element of carelessness or perhaps even negligence on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner and all other applicants for admission to the Medical Colleges or other Technical Colleges where seats are limited and there is great competition for admission should be very careful in scrutinizing their documents before the same are filed. If the admissions had not been finalized and respondent No.4 had not been admitted, perhaps the relief sought by the petitioner in the present Constitutional Petition might have been granted to him but, as observed earlier, in this case there is an element of carelessness /negligence on the part of the petitioner in not getting his defective marks‑sheet corrected before the same was filed in February, 1987 alongwith the application for admission to Chandka Medical College for which purpose he had about three months with him. In the meantime, the admissions had been finalized. Respondent No.4 has been admitted, he has paid his fees, purchased books, incurred other expenses and has also been attending class for about three months now. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioner has not made out a case for admission to Medical College at the expense of respondent No.4, who is not at fault at all in so far as his admission in the Medical College is concerned.
3. In the circumstances, we cannot grant relief to the petitioner by giving a direction that the respondent No.4 should be removed from the Medical College for academic session 1986‑87. However, as admittedly the initial fault lay with the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sukkur and if petitioner had got his marks‑sheet corrected within time. he would have been admitted in his own right, being number 4 on the merit list, we leave it to the discretion of the official respondents that if it is possible to accommodate the petitioner. 1 by admitting him in the Medical College for academic session 1986‑87 without disturbing respondent No.4 (Mohammad Yakoob son of Haji. Nizamuddin), they may take such action as is considered just and proper in the circumstances of this case, it is further ordered with the consent of the learned A.A. ‑G. and Mr. Kadir Bux Memon appearing for the official respondents that the petitioner will be entitled to apply for admission to the Medical College for the Sessions 1987‑88.
'Constitutional Petition No. D‑178/87 stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
C . M. A . 409/87 for interim relief has become infructuous.
A copy of this judgment may be sent to the Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sukkur. This direction is being given as we have been disturbed not only in this case but in several other cases about the careless attitude on the part of the concerned functionaries of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education in making clerical mistakes in the issuance of documents. We may add here that although we have used the word 'careless', if such mistakes are repeated, allegations of mala fides and ulterior motives may also be imputed. It is expected that in all cases where such mistakes have taken place, the Board has held inquiries or is going to hold inquiries so as to fix the responsibility for issuance of such defective documents. One small mistake, made intentionally or unintentionally, in the documents issued by the Board can adversely affect the entire future career of a student resulting in irreparable loss to him.
M . Y . H . /S‑108/ K Petition dismissed.