CHAIRMAN, ADMISSION BOARD OF MEDICAL COLLEGES OF THE PUNJAB And Another vs MUHAMMAD AYUB And Another
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an interim order passed by the High Court concerning the admission of two respondents to a Medical College. The dispute arose after the petitioner, the Admission Board, initially granted admission to respondent No. 1 based on an inadvertent computer error, which was subsequently cancelled upon discovery of the mistake. The High Court initially intervened against this cancellation, but the Board later reaffirmed the cancellation and admitted respondent No. 2 in his place. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, respondent No. 2 had been studying for two years under the High Court's interim orders, while the status of respondent No. 1 remained unclear. The Supreme Court, noting the complexity and the need to ensure justice for both parties, converted the petition into an appeal. The Court directed the parties to file necessary documentation for a final disposal and ordered the petitioner to clarify the academic status of respondent No. 1 during the relevant period to facilitate a fair adjudication of the competing claims.
- Can an admission granted due to a computer error be cancelled by the Admission Board?
- Does the High Court have the authority to interfere with the cancellation of an admission based on a clerical error?
- What factors should be considered when balancing the rights of two candidates in a medical college admission dispute?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought; against an interim order passed by the High Court with regard to the admission of respondents Nos. l and 2 in a Medical College.
2. While respondent No. 1 was given admission on a wrong assumption with regard to his better position on account of, as stated by the learned counsel, an inadvertent mistake in wrong feeding of the computer, however, subsequently on discovery of the mistake the petitioner cancelled the admission. On challenge before the High Court this cancellation was withdrawn on the assumption that it was incompetent. But the Board constituted in this behalf, again passed an order of cancellation of admission of respondent No.1. In his place respondent No.2 was granted admission.
3. By now respondent No.2, it appears, has studied for two years under the orders impugned before the High Court while it is not known as to what happened to respondent No.1. His learned A.O.R. Has yet to seek instructions in this behalf. On filing of this petition the Court passed interim orders affecting the interim orders passed by the High Court with the result that, as stated by the learned counsel, while respondent No. 1 is out of college, respondent No.2 is regularly studying. In these circumstances it is just and fair in order to see whether justice has been done to both the respondents, we consider it a fit case for further examination. This petition, accordingly, is converted into appeal.
4. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all those documents which would be necessary for disposal of appeal.
5. It shall be fixed for hearing within this year at Lahore. The learned A.O.R. Of the petitioners shall lay information before the Court with regard to the continuance or otherwise of studies by respondent No.1 during the period between 1987 and 1989.