Miss RIZWANA ANDALEEB vs PRINCIPAL, CHANDKA MEDICAL COLLEGE, LARKANA and anothers
This review petition was filed against the decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the petitioner's admission to Chandka Medical College, Larkana. The petitioner sought to introduce a new ground for admission, arguing that under Rule 2(iv) of the Rules of Admission, candidates unable to apply in the previous session due to late issuance of domicile or Permanent Residence Certificate (PRC) were eligible. The petitioner contended that her case fell within this category as she lacked a PRC in the previous year. The core legal question was whether a new question of fact, not previously raised in the High Court or the initial leave petition, could be entertained in a review petition. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that a review petition is not a further appeal and possesses an extremely limited scope. The Court observed that the petitioner failed to raise this issue earlier or provide necessary documentation, such as the previous admission form or rejection order, and concluded that the new arguments did not alter the original decision.
- Can a new question of fact be introduced for the first time in a review petition before the Supreme Court?
- Is a review petition in the Supreme Court considered a further appeal?
- What is the scope of a review petition in the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
ORDER
1. ' WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---The only ground urged in respect of this review petition is that under rule 2(iv) of the Rules of Admission (P.58) those candidates who could not be considered in the previous session due to late issuance of domicile/ PRC etc. Would be eligible to apply. It is added that the petitioner's case was exactly the same because in the previous year the petitioner had not been able to get her PRC. When asked whether this question was raised by the petitioner in the High Court or in the leave petition before us, Mr. Muhammad Muzaffarul Haque maintained that the same had been agitated in one of the replies submitted by the petitioner in this Court. This is no way of coming up with a new question of fact. Besides the learned counsel has neither been able to place a copy of the earlier admission form of the petitioner or of the order of rejection thereof at any stage. Manifestly, a review in this Court is not a further appeal and the scope thereof is extremely limited. Nothing that the petitioner has urged now alters the decision already rendered.
2. ' Dismissed.