Pakistan Case Law
1971 SCMR 79

MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs ADMINISTRATOR, DOW MEDICAL COLLEGE, KARACHI

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1971 SCMR 79
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-49 of 1970
Date1970-08-19
Judge(s)Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Wahiduddin Ahmad
Authored byMuhammad Yaqub Ali
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had rejected the petitioner's challenge to the admission of respondents 3 and 4 to the Dow Medical College, Karachi, against tagged rural seats. The core legal question was whether Model Colony, having been included in the Malir Cantonment in 1965, ceased to be a rural area under the admission instructions. The Supreme Court held that the inclusion of an area within cantonment or municipal limits does not automatically strip it of its rural character if its population meets the census criterion and residents pursue agricultural pursuits. Furthermore, the petition was hit by laches and equity as the respondents had already been attending classes since January 1970 without a stay order. The petition was dismissed with observations that the college authorities might consider the petitioner favorably for the next session.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does an area cease to be a rural area for college admissions merely because it is included within cantonment limits?
  • Can a candidate displace admitted students who have been attending classes without an interim stay order?
  • What constitutes a rural area under the admission instructions based on population and census?
medical college admissionrural seatsdefinition of rural areawrit petitionleave to appealequity

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The petitioner, a resident of Mudrad Memon Goth, district Karachi, was a candidate for admission to the Dow Medical College, Karachi, against two tagged rural seats allotted to Karachi district. However, as the marks obtained by him in the F. Sc. Examination were less than the marks obtained by the respondents 3 and 4, residents of the Model Colony, Malir, he was passed over against which he moved the High Court in writ jurisdiction basing his claim on the assertion that the Model Colony was not a tagged rural area of district Karachi within the Instructions for Application for Admission to First Year M. B. B. S. Class issued by the Provincial Government.

2. It was contended that since the Model Colony was, in 1965, included in the Malir Cantt. It ceased to be a ruralarea and the respondents 3 and 4 were not eligible for admission to tagged rural seats.

3. Reliance was placed on the definition of rural and urban areas in the Basic Democracies Order. The prayer was rejected by the High Court from which the petitioner now seeks leave to appeal.

4. Rural area is defined in the Instructions as "a place where the population is less than twenty-five thousand according to 1961 census". Admittedly, the population of the Model Colony in 1961 was much less than 25,000, but it is contended thatModel Colony is now part of Malir Cantt and not a separate place.We are unable to accept the contention. It is common knowledge that many rural and semi-rural areas neighbouring big cities like Karachi and Lahore are included within the Municipal limits, but their residents continue to follow agricultural pursuits. The learned counsel is unable to show on the present record that the Model Colony is not a rural area in this sense.

5. Moreover, the petitioner having failed to obtain a stay order cannot now expect to displace respondents 3 and 4 who have paid the College fees and are attending the First Year Class since January 1970.

6. The learned counsel tells us that the petitioner has Joined B. Sc. Classes and is keen on joining the Dow Medical College against a tagged area rural seat. He does come from a proper rural area and we hope that the College authorities will consider his case favourably during the next session. With these observations the petition is dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.