RIFFAT AKRAM Versus CHAIRMAN, ADMISSION BOARD/PRINCIPAL, KING EDWARD MEDICAL COLLEGE, LAHORE , Abdul Samad Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate -on-Record
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition filed by a student seeking admission to a medical college under a reserved quota for disabled persons. The petitioner, suffering from polio, was denied admission after a Board of Medical Specialists determined she was not physically fit to pursue medical studies or perform professional duties, as required by the prospectus governing the 1992-93 academic session. The core legal question was whether the court could interfere with the expert determination of a medical board regarding a candidate's physical fitness for a professional course. The Supreme Court held that the Admission Board's decision, based on the expert opinion of five senior specialists, was valid and that the court could not substitute its own opinion for that of the specialized medical board. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition, affirming that judicial review does not extend to replacing expert medical assessments with judicial findings, and accordingly refused leave to appeal.
- Can a court substitute its own opinion for the findings of a specialized medical board regarding a candidate's physical fitness for medical studies?
- Is the decision of an admission board to deny entry to a disabled student based on an expert medical report subject to judicial interference?
ORDER
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J .‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 3‑5‑1993, of the Lahore High Court whereby Writ Petition No. 161/1993, filed by her was dismissed.
2. The facts in brief forming the background of the case are that in 1974, when the petitioner was hardly three years old, she suffered an attack of Polio resulting in complete paralysation of one leg and the other leg was also incapacitated up to 90% of its normal function. She could walk, only with the help of clutches. In spite of her serious disability she secured 779 marks in the Intermediate Examination and applied for admission to a Medical College in Punjab against one of the twelve reserved seats for disabled students. She was examined by a Board of Medical Specialists but was not found physically fit to carry on studies in medicine and after qualifying the examination to perform professional duties. The Admission Board therefore declined to admit her.
3. Aggrieved by respondent's refusal to admit her in First Year M.B.,B.S. Class, she filed the abovementioned Constitutional petition, which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner being brilliant student could easily qualify M.B.,B.S. Examination and could perform professional duties satisfactorily. It was further contended that the Admission Board arbitrarily refused her admission. Learned counsel, however, could not cite a single instance whereby the Admission Board ignored the opinion of the Board of Medical Specialists. The relevant paragraph (hereinafter reproduced) of the Prospectus of the Government Medical Colleges in Punjab for the Sessions 1992‑93, regulates admission against 12 seats reserved for disabled students.
"6. Disabled students:
The admission of the disabled students will be on merit and subject to the production of following certificates from a Special Board/Committee to be constituted by the Admission Board:‑‑
(1) That he/she is a disabled student.
(2) That he/she is physically/mentally fit to carry on studies and perform professional duties after qualifying M.B.,B.S."
Admittedly the Board of Medical Specialists consisting upon five Senior Specialists examined the petitioner and found her not physically fit to carry on studies and perform professional duties after qualifying M.B.,B.S. Examination.
The learned Judge of the High Court rightly observed in the impugned judgment that the Court cannot substitute its opinion for the Board of Specialists constituted by the Admission Board as contemplated in para. 6 of the Prospectus. In any case we find no room for interference in the well?-considered judgment of the Lahore High Court.
In the result, we find no merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave refused.
AA./R‑220/S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.