KARACHI, Jan 25: When the petitions challenging omission of names of the petitioners from the IBA test’s second list came up before a division bench of the Sindh High Court on Friday, the advocate-general Sindh sought more time for seeking the government’s instructions.

At the very outset, AG Raja Qureshi requested the bench, comprising Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Zia Pervez, to postpone the hearing for a few days because a meeting was scheduled for Jan 29 with health department officials to consider the contentions of the petitioners whose counsel at the previous hearing had proposed re-examination of a limited number of candidates.

They had also requested for allowing the petitioners to deposit their fees with the medical colleges while the matter was decided by the court. The petitioners prayed that the respondents should be directed to make arrangements for depositing fees with the respective medical college in the interest of justice.

The counsel for petitioner Syed Mohammed Mustafa and others, S. M. Iqbal, also submitted a rejoinder to the counter-affidavit filed by Abdul Hameed Khan, Coordinator Testing Services of the IBA, raising new grounds.

It was his contention that grading and re-grading of the answer sheets were done under the strict supervision of the respondent, and claimed that he could not discharge the burden of proof by simply saying that accused Asim Majeed had alone done the requisite grading of the answer sheets.

His contention was that it was the official duty of the coordinator to check strictly all the answer sheets to avoid any sort of commission or mistake by the department.

The petitioner also denied that any forged answer sheets were available. He claimed that his original answer sheet had been treated as forged, and pointed out that the respondent No 5 (coordinator, testing services of the IBA) had not produced the original record of the alleged forged answer sheet.

The petitioner claimed that when he appeared before the DSP Airport and recorded his statment, even the DSP was not in a position to show him the forged answer sheet.

The petitioner contended that on the pretext of rechecking of answer sheets innocent students were deprived of their right to admission by levelling false allegations, which were not supported by documents.

The mala fides of the respondents No 2 and 5 were clear from the contents of para 13 of the affidavit, the petitioner claimed maintaining that in the first place the respondents removed 33 students from the list after the announcement of selection results. When the need for more seats was felt they allegedly again removed two more names on the pretext of re-checking. The petitioner contended that the respondents were treating original answer sheets as forged and were not in a position to establish the alleged malpractice.

The petitioner also denied that there was substitution of any answer sheet nor did he indulge in any sort of forgery, malpractice and corruption - the allegation on which he was deprived of admission and someone else was allegedly accommodated in his place.

With regard to the respondent’s contention about police investigation, the petitioner claimed that all this was done with clear and planned conspiracy to put police after the students to scare them and to force them to give up their fight for their rights. The petitioner claimed that the respondents Nos 2 and 5 acted with criminal intention and victimized the students, including him.

The petitioner also claimed that the respondent No 5 had “wilfully and deliberately made a false statement regarding forgery and corruption to cover up the malfunctioning of his own department. All this is part of a plan to give cover to the illegalities committed by the respondents.”

He maintained that it was the duty of the coordinator to give a call to all those students whose cases were detected allegedly as forged. Just one unsigned application was treated as a pretext for the removal of the petitioner’s name after fair selection and the same was done in violation of rules and laws provided under the Sindh Medical Colleges Act of 1987.

He claimed that the whole process was based on mala fides and illegality was committed by the respondents in the cases of substituted students.

The petitioner claimed that it had come on record that group “C” was accommodated in place of “A,” instead of giving a chance to “B”, which spoke volumes about faithfulness of the respondents.

It was also claimed that lodging of the FIR was also pre-planned. At first unknown culprits were shown as accused, but after arrival of police, the respondent No 5 himself named his subordinate as accused and saved his skin by saying that record was kept by them.

The petitioner claimed that the respondent No 5 was the actual custodian of the record and had so far not supplied the original record to police, or to him, or to the court, which could be used to establish allegations of forgery and malpractice against innocent students. During the previous hearing, S. M.Iqbal had argued that test of 70 students, 35 those who had been dropped or left out and an even number of those who were accommodated in their place, be held again.

In compliance with the court’s directives Abdul Hameed Khan in his affidavit had explained the process.

On complete rechecking, in the first round 11 forged answer sheets from Hyderabad centre, 22 from Karachi centre and none from Larkana centre were detected. In the second round one more forged answer sheet was detected. In the third round, which had been conducted by representatives from Dow Medical College and Liaquat Medical University of Jamshoro, one more forged answer sheet from Karachi centre was detected. In all, there were 35 forged answer sheets.

In the provisional list which was issued to the DMC, LMC and CMC names of the above-mentioned 35 candidates were included. The purpose of giving a provisional list was to provide candidates an opportunity to submit objections regarding the evaluation of the graded photocopy of answer sheets which were sent to the candidates immediately after the announcement of provisional list along the key.

After brief hearing court adjourned the matter to Feb 1.