MUHAMMAD TAYYAB Versus The VICE-CHANCELLOR/CHAIRMAN ADMISSION COMMITTEE (BUMHS)

ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J .---The petitioners filed instant constitutional petition with the following prayer:-- "a. To declare that the impugned provision i.e. 17 (f) of the prospectus of BUMHS for session of 2018-19 is vires to Articles 4, 8, 18, 25, 37 (c) of the Constitution, and in result thereof set aside the same; b. To further declare that the petitioner has successfully passed the entry test for grant of admission in MBBS Session 2018-19 and scored (-) higher marks than the private respondent, standing at serial No. 12 of the merit list, thus vested right has accrued in his favor and is entitled for grant of admission in MBBS for the Sessions 2018-19. c. To declare that the grant of admission to the private respondent, who is at serial No. 13, is contrary to the law, merit and fairness, hence her name from successful candidates' list dated 05.08.2019 be deleted/ removed. d. To direct the respondent No. 01 to issue the admission order to the petitioner in MBBS for session of 2018-19 of BUMHS. e. Any other relief deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of equity, fair play and justice."

2. Facts of the instant petition are that pursuant to the advertisement the petitioner applied for admission in MDCAT of Bolan University of Medical and Health Sciences (BUMHS) for session 2018-19 and participated in the process of entry test and stood at serial No. 12 of the merit list, whereas private respondent was at serial No. 13 of the merit list of District Khuzdar. It was contended that when the petitioner appeared in interview it was informed that since the petitioner had admission in Lasbella University of Agriculture Water and Marine Sciences, Uthal in DVM, therefore, in view of clause 17(f) of the Prospectus of BUMHS the petitioner cannot be considered for admission in MBBS for academic session 2018-19. In the circumstances the petitioner filed an application to the official respondent with the request that Hon'ble High Court of Balochistan has held that such students who were already admitted to professional university cannot be deprived of admission in BUMHS, but the same was not entertained, hence the petitioner is before this court.

3. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. It transpires that the petitioner has challenged the vires of provision 17(f) of the Prospectus of BUMHS for session 2018-19. It would be appropriate to reproduce the provision of 17(f) of the prospectus of BUMHS:--

"17(f): If a candidate once has been admitted to veterinary, engineering, forestry or any other professional posts against the government reserved seat, he/she shall not be eligible to seek admission in MBBS or BDS, whether the nominee being nominated by government or by the authorities of institute concern on their own level."

4. Admittedly the petitioner had applied for admission in Lasbella University of Agriculture, Water and Marine Sciences (LUAWMS) at Uthal and succeeded to get admission on reserved seat of DVM (LUAWMS). It is choice of the candidate to make his preference and select an institution. The purpose behind the referred to provision of BUMHS is to put a check upon person who get admission in one professional institute and start studying there and later on applied for admission in another professional institution. In such situation his earlier seat becomes vacant. Another student cannot possibly be adjusted which amounts to deprivation of a right of admission to student next to him in merit list.

5. There is no evidence on record that the petitioner had raised any objection upon selection of private respondent before the Selection Committee. Under Article 114 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 the petitioner is stopped to raise objection subsequently for the first time through the instant petition.

6. Framing of admission policy falls in the domain of the university authorities. The educational institutions are bound by the policy laid down in their prospectus. It is obligatory upon the student to follow the policy. Ordinary High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction does not interfere in the matter of inner policy of the educational institution, as the authorities are the sole judge to lay down criteria for the institution in their prospectus unless the decision of the respondent is illegal or arbitrary.

7. The provisions of 17(f) of prospectus of BUMHS clearly stipules that once a candidate get admission in one professional college, cannot be eligible for admission in another professional college. The above referred provision of the prospectus is quite clear and is indeed unequivocal. The respondent university has follow the policy enunciates by its prospectus and candidate has to adhere it. If a candidate fail to adhere the policy this court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction cannot take the role of a policy maker. Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Ilyas v Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, 2005 SCMR 961, wherein it was held as under:--

"5. We have heard the learned counsel and have also gone through the relevant regulation. At the outset it may be noted that as far as the rules/regulations framed by the University Authorities for the purpose of conductive / regularizing examination etc. of University are concerned these are required to be interpreted by the University Authorities itself and Courts should avoid to interpret the same unless a case of grave injustice is not made out otherwise it would become difficult for University administration to run its internal affairs relating to examination, etc. Further, a perusal of Regulation 8(F) and its other parts clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was required to obtain (CGPA) independently in each semester for the purpose of promotion to the next semester. As it has been pointed out hereinabove that the petitioner did not obtain requisite (CGPA) in the 3rd semester i.e. 2.00 (CGPA) therefore. University Authorities in exercise of power conferred upon them under Regulation 8(F) rightly removed his name from the roll. The learned ICA Bench after examining the case of petitioner in depth reached to the conclusion that he was required to obtain 2.00 CGPA in the 3rd semester, therefore, his name was rightly removed from the roll of University as impugned judgment is just and legal, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan."

The Honorable Supreme Court further held in the case of Secretary Economic Affairs Division Islamabad v. Anwarul Haq Ahmed 2013 SCMR 1687 as under:--

"20. Before dilating upon the arguments of the parties, it is considered appropriate to note that educational institutions are independent to follow policy for admission including affairs relating to changing conditions for endowment funds or fee, either under the policy given by the government or adopted by the college; and interference in the policy by the Court is possible only in exceptional circumstances. Reference may be made to the case of Chairman Joint Admission Commission v. Raza Hassan (1999 SCMR 965) wherein it was held that the universities in Pakistan enjoy complete freedom to take decision in their own matters and interference by the Courts in such matters would be the least desirable, except for exceptional circumstances. In another case namely Mian Muhammad Afzal v. Province of Punjab (2004 SCMR 1570) this Court declined to interfere in the matter relating to the admission in the medical college, on the ground that it was of administrative nature relating to policy. In the case of Shazia Irshad Bokhari v. Government of Punjab (PLD 2005 Lahore 428), the learned Lahore High Court held that the Court, under its Constitutional jurisdiction would not enter into policy making domain of the State or question the wisdom of the legislature; it would not normally interfere or strike down a policy made by the Government unless the same was proved mala fide or made in a colourable exercise of authority, etc. It was further held that the classification in terms of equal treatment was legally permissible. Reference may also be made the case of Waqas Zafar v. Baha-ud-Din Zakriya University (2010 CLC 999)."

The petitioner has failed to point out how the provision of 17 (f) of the prospectus of BUMHS for academic session 2018-19 is violative of the Constitution, hence this petition is dismissed. Consequently the order passed by this court dated 18th June, 2020 is hereby re-called.

SA/237/Bal. Petition dismissed.