KARACHI, Jan 15: Petitions of some of the aspirants for admission to medical colleges, who had challenged the omission of their names from the second list of students clearing the controversial IBA test, came up before a division bench of the Sindh High Court on Tuesday.

When the matter came up before the bench, consisting of Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Zia Pervaiz, photocopy of the records pertaining to the petitions were produced by the Institute of Business Administration, Karachi.

The court scrutinized the record and said some clarification was needed regarding record from the IBA (respondent No 2).

The IBA was directed to file a comprehensive counter-affidavit on or before the next date of hearing on Jan 22.

Additional Advocate-General Abbas Ali was directed to call a representative of the Sindh health department, who was well conversant with the matter. The DSP Airport, Haseeb Baig, and the ASP Airport were also directed to appear on the next date and submit a detailed report of investigation and FIR.

Counsel for the IBA Shoaib Ahmed referred to alleged manipulation in the answer sheets of 35 students.

Counsel S. M. Iqbal, representing petitioner Shaikh Nadeem Roshan and others, took the plea that answer sheets of 35 students were changed and manipulated deliberately to accommodate 35 other students who were below the merit level, and there was a presumption that it was done to accommodate the latter.

Shaikh Nadeem had cleared his Intermediate Examination (Pre-medical Science) in grade “A” private from Karachi. He appeared in the entrance test for admission to medical and dental colleges in Sindh conducted by the IBA for the year 2001-2002, having Roll No/Sheet No 0659.

The first entrance test was conducted on 28-10-2001, but the whole test examination was declared void on the pretext that some IBA staff had leaked out the examination paper. It was regretted by the IBA, saying that it was a human error.

The second similar test was conducted on November 15, 2001 satisfactorily. A provisional merit list of selection of the candidates was issued by the Selection Committee through the IBA on November 28, 2001.

Counsel Iqbal, in the petition, submitted that the petitioner was declared selected achieving number 57 in the merit order. The photocopy of marks sheet and copy of the answer sheet were received by the candidate on Nov 27.

According to the procedure of the entrance test, after issuance of a provisional list a final list was to be issued by the Selection Committee through the IBA. The final list (revised list) was issued on Dec 26. The name of the petitioner was removed from the final list.

This was unprecedented that the name of a selected candidate was removed from the final list without assigning any reason and without issuing any show-cause to the candidate, he contended.

The petitioner had approached the respondents, but no satisfactory reply was given. He claimed that now the petitioner had come to know through newspapers that some employees of the IBA had been arrested and it was alleged that staff of the IBA had manipulated the answer sheets of 34 candidates through corrupt practices. After removal of the names of 34 selected students, the other 34 students were obliged and listed in merit orders for admission for the year 2001-2002.

It was contended that the petitioner, unable to comprehend the removal of his name from the selection list, received a notice from the respondent No 6, a DSP, u/s 160 of CrPC, seeking his attendance for evidence in connection with the FIR No 97/2001, registered against the staff of the IBA under sections 420/406/468/409/34 of PPC at Mubina Town police station in Karachi.

The petitioner had contacted other students and came to know that investigations were under way against the arrested employees of the IBA in respect of the above affair, but till date he had not received any intimation from the Selection Committee or from the IBA regarding removal of his name from the final list. The respondents were not giving any proper answer regarding the affairs of the entrance test for admission to MBBS/BDS courses for the year 2001-2002.

The petitioner claimed that the act of the respondents was illegal, unconstitutional, and based on mala fides. The name of 34 students, including the petitioner’s, had been removed from the list of selected candidates, and another 34 students below the merit orders were rewarded selection, due to malafide reasons and malpractice in the departments of the respondents.

To cover the illegalities notices under section 160 of CrPC were issued for creating harassment and an atmosphere so that the affected students should not follow the track of redressal.

The petitioner was aggrieved and likely to suffer irreparable damages if he was not given due rights in the light of merit test and results announced by the competent authorities.

It was the case of the petitioner that there seemed to be a twofold conspiracy: to bring the IBA into disrepute for future entrance tests and to mint money from the students who had failed to succeed in the entrance test, with a planned theory of criminal charges against IBA staff at the cost of 34 innocent and poor students.

The petitions, after having failed to get any response or legal action from the respondents and having no alternative remedy available, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for judicial scrutiny and interference in the affairs of entrance test for the year 2001-2002.

It was prayed that a) direct the respondents Nos 1 to 5 to restore the name of the petitioner, Shaikh Nadeem Roshan, in the final merit list; b) direct the respondents Nos 1 to 5 to allow the petitioner to deposit fee and other documents as per the provisional merit list dated 28. 11. 2001; c) direct the respondent Nos 6 and 7 to stop harassing the petitioner; d) declare that the actions of the respondents were illegal, ultravires and without any legal and lawful authority.

Advocate Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, representing Mukesh Kumar and others, argued that answer papers did not contain the IBA’s punching numbers. The date below the seal on them was mentioned as 12 Nov whereas the paper was given/taken on Nov 15.

The court directed the investigation officer to note this point.

The counsel also contended that the IBA had submitted a duplicate copy.

His contention was that the director of IBA was disqualified to be given any service in Pakistan and also referred to a government notification in this regard.

The matter was adjourned to Jan 22.