KARACHI, Dec 12: The Supreme Court reserved on Wednesday judgment in the petition of a student of Chandka Medical College, Larkana, who had challenged the act of denying her the right to appear in further examinations by the college.

The bench at the Karachi Registry consisted of Justice Deedar Husain Shah and Justice Hamid Ali Mirza.

The respondents were asked why disciplinary action was not taken against the official concerned who allegedly helped the petitioner to manipulate things.

The court remarked who would be responsible for the loss of so many years of the student. The petitioner was herself present in the court. The principal of Chandka Medical College and the Sindh health secretary were also present. Suleman Habibullah, AAG Sindh, was also present.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of a division bench of the Sindh High Court on June 20 in CP No D-1430 of 2000, Ms Rizwana Andaleeb Vs the principal of Chandka Medical College, Larkana, and others, the petitioner had preferred this appeal.

The petition had raised many law points which included whether after holding inquiry by the respondent No 3 in pursuance of the order of this court of September 10, 1999, in CP No 485-K/99, the entire controversy of this matter needed to be re-examined afresh by the respondents?

It also raised the issue whether clause VI Rule 2 (vi) for attempts to repeat for better division was not applicable to the petitioner, therefore the bad inference drawn against the petitioner was patently illegal and amounted to her victimization?

Whether the petitioner was legally entitled to continue her studies when her admission was legal and proper and she had studied upto IVth year MBBS and she was legally entitled for admission to the next year session for non-supply/ issuance of PRC?

Whether it was expected under the doctrine of reasonable expectation that after holding inquiry and coming to the conclusion that there was mal- administration and lapses on the part of the college administration, the respondent No 2 ought to have decided the matter on merit?

Whether the entire controversy suffered from surmises and conjectures?

Whether the impugned judgments had badly affected the right of the petitioner to continue her studies further, and it was a harsh action against the petitioner without her fault?

Whether there was miscarriage of justice in this entire controversy?

The petitioner had applied for admission to 1st year MBBS for the 1994-95 session. After a detailed inquiry and perusal of the documents, the petitioner was selected and she paid the usual fees and she was also enrolled by the University of Sindh and her enrolment No was 33884-C, and she subsequently paid the fee on February 13, 1997, at the college.

It was her case that she appeared at the first professional MBBS examination in Feb 1997, but unfortunately she failed and thereafter she appeared at the (Bi-annual) Examination of 1997 and passed the first professional MBBS examination. The petitioner subsequently paid the college fees for the 3rd year MBBS classes and she was attending classes of third year regularly.

When the examination forms for the 2nd professional MBBS examination were to be filed, the petitioner was orally told that her admission had been cancelled with effect from July 25, 1995. On her protest she was supplied the photostat copy of the order dated January 3, 1998 wherein it was shown that her admission stood cancelled with effect from July 25, 1995.

The petitioner contended that cancellation of admission vide order No Std/1596-97 of July 25, 1995 by the respondent No 1 was not only without notice, but it had neither been acted upon nor delivered to her, as she had been attending the college and appeared at the university for examination twice and the college fees had been accepted from her by the college on Jan 15, 1998.

The petitioner also contended that in the prospectus for the session 1994-95 in the admission rules there was no condition or embargo that if any candidate had not improved the marks or division in repeating the same Intermediate science examination was debarred for admission to any medical college in Sindh, and this rule was applicable for the session 1994-95 and the petitioner was granted admission on merit from Khairpur District against reserve seats.

This rule was not applicable to the petitioner’s admission, and the respondents had illegally applied this rule in order to cancel the admission of the petitioner and it was a mala fide act on their part and a sheer abuse of process of lawful authority.

The petitioner maintained that the respondent No 2, in order to deprive candidates who could improve the marks in second attempts for admission to MBBS in first year for the session 1995-96, ie, next year, had made an amendment in the rules of admission and added Clause VI, in Rule 2 of admission as under:-

“(VI) Those candidates attempted to repeat their Intermediate Science (pre- medical) for improvement but did not improve their marks are not eligible to apply.”

This rule came into operation for the session 1995-96 and not for the year 1994-95. But the respondent No 1 had cancelled the admission of the petitioner by applying the rule of admission which had been amended for 1995-96. In fact the respondents were not competent, according to law, to cancel her admission retrospectively, when she had utilized her three previous years to prosecute her studies by putting in hard labour and incurring heavy expenses and had cleared 1st professional MBBS.

The petitioner had filed the CP No D-166/98 in the impugned cancellation of admission in the High Court of Sindh at Karachi, praying to (a) declare that impugned order of the cancellation of admission mentioned in the impugned order dated January 8, 1998 illegal and void and be quashed/set aside; (b) to grant permanent injunction restraining the respondents from cancelling the admission of the petitioner; (c) and to award cost of the petition.

The SHC had dismissed the petition. The reason was given that rules made for the 1995-96 session were applicable to the case of the petitioner as she got admission in the 1994-95 session.

Additional advocate-general, Sindhi, had made a wrong statement, the petitioner claimed.

It was further submitted that the petitioner had submitted the mark-sheet in original and the respondent No I had got it verified from the Board of Intermediate Education concerned, and there was no question of manipulation or tampering by the petitioner, as there was no embargo or bar for admission at the time when the petitioner had applied for admission for improvement of marks in repeating the examination and this amendment had come into operation subsequently, ie, the next year.

Therefore, to treat the case retrospectively was not within the jurisdiction of the respondent, and the petitioner had been victimized illegally and she was entitled to resume her classes and the impugned order was liable to be set aside.

The Supreme Court had dismissed the petition No D-485-K/99, but it had ordered an inquiry to the respondent No 2 who, after conducting an inquiry, submitted a report and in the said report Imtiaz Ahmed Shaikh, secretary government of Sindh, had come to conclusion as under:-

“During the discussion the petitioner claimed that she passed 2nd professional MBBS and continued her studies in 4th year and has also appeared in Theory Examination of 3rd professional MBBS, though contrary to the order passed by the Principal, Chandka Medical College, Larkana. Although she was not entitled she continued her studies after cancellation of her admission by the Principal, Chandka Medical College, Larkana. It has also been felt that lapses occurred on the part of college administration as well, due to which she continued her studies up to the 4th year and appeared in theory examination of 3rd MBBS.”

It was the petitioner’s contention that she had been victimized in this matter and she had neither tampered with the mark-sheet.

The petitioner claimed to have disclosed facts in the admission form and there was nothing adverse against her and the whole matter of tampering with the mark-sheet had been taken on the photostat copy of the aforesaid mark-sheet. It was mandatory that original mark-sheet was compulsorily to be submitted.