November 23, 2002	Saturday	Ramazan 17, 1423

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window).

MULTAN, Nov 22: The Multan bench of the Lahore High Court has declared all those candidates eligible for the medical entry test who have secured at least 65 per cent marks in the pre-medical intermediate examination.

Justice Mohammad Khalid Alvi directed the provincial health authorities to fix a reasonable date for the test and invite applications from those who had not been able to apply previously due to the condition of 70 per cent marks.

The court further ordered that if the respondents felt that in the given circumstances, they would not be able to arrange the test on Dec 15, then they might change the date and publicise the decision extensively.

The court passed the orders while disposing of a number of petitions against the policy to allow only those aspirants to sit in the test who had secured at least 70 per cent marks in their pre-medical FSc exams. The petitioners had nominated the provincial health secretary and the admission board chairman (the KEMC principal) as respondents.

The petitioners were represented by Advocate Sardar Altaf Husain Khan while Assistant Advocate General Malik Mohammad Qasim represented the respondents.

The petitioners had pleaded that the minimum marks required to qualify for the medical entry test had been enhanced from 65 to 70 per cent. The change in admission policy was illegal as it had been introduced after the intermediate exams.

Besides, the minimum marks required to appear in the medical entry test in other three provinces were just 60 per cent.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the petitioners should have moved the court before the last date for submission of applications for the test (Oct 31), as was done by the petitioners who got relief from the principal seat of the court on similar grounds.

They added that the minimum marks to apply for the test had been enhanced in the light of last year’s experience when a large number of candidates opted for the test, creating managerial problems for them.

In his 10-page judgment, Justice Alvi observed that the division bench of the court had based its decision on statements of the admission board chairman rather than merit in petitions No 19426/2002 and No 19887/2002.

The court observed that by making a statement before the division bench, the admission board chairman had caused a major change in the policy announced. Therefore, the concession could not be restricted to the petitioners who appeared before the division bench. “It is not necessary for every citizen to approach the court for his or her rights, as it is the responsibility of the state to protect the rights of its citizens without any discrimination.”

The court further observed that it would create a bad impression on the new generation that it could not get their rights without knocking at the door of the court. “Even otherwise, discriminatory decisions are violative of the principle of good governance.”

Admitting that policy formulation was a right of the respondents, Justice Alvi commented that it should nevertheless be exercised in accordance with law, fair play and be timed to give a level playing field to the aspirants. In this instance, the policy was changed at a time when students were left with no option, having taken the exams targeting the requirement of 65 per cent marks.”

In his concluding remarks, Justice Alvi stated that the respondents’ attitude had not been fair to the candidates.