W.P. No.

5165 of 2014
Chairman Admission Board,
UHS etc.

Gull-e-Raana

21.05.2014.

Mr. Javaid Iqbal Raja, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Imran Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate for the
respondents
The petitioner seeks an order from this Court
directing respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to consider the revised
F.Sc result of the petitioner issued on 03.02.2014 by
respondent No.3 and to include her name in the merit list
for admission to a medical college.
2.

The facts giving rise to this petition are that

petitioner passed F.Sc Examination in the year 2013 in

Pre-Medical Group from Board of Intermediate and
Secondary Education Gujranwala. A provisional result
card was issued on 23.09.2013 showing her aggregate
marks as 976. The petitioner was not satisfied with her
result. She applied for rechecking of the papers of
English and Chemistry.
3.

In the meantime, respondent No.1 published an

advertisement for admission to M.B.B.S / B.D.S in

different medical / dental colleges of Punjab. The
petitioner submitted her application on 26.10.2013. Since

W.P. No. 5165 of 2014

Page 2

the petitioners aggregate was 85.91%, she was offered

admission in the dental section of Punjab Medical
College, Faisalabad according to the list issued by
respondent No.1 on 24.12.2013. Subsequently on the
basis of up-gradation she was admitted to de
Montmorency College of Dentistry at Lahore. It is stated
that the petitioner joined the college and has been
attending classes.
4.

It appears that in consequence of rechecking,

respondent No.3 informed the petitioner that 02 marks

had been added to her total marks, making her aggregate
978 Marks. On surrendering of her old result card, a
revised result card was issued on 03.02.2014. As a result
of addition of 02 marks, the percentage of the petitioners
score has increased to 85.9826%. She, therefore, claims
revision of the merit list which the respondent has
refused to do. Hence this petition.
5.

The respondents were called upon to file parawise

comments, which has been done.

6.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner has a right to seek revision of the merit list

by reason of increase in her aggregate marks. He
maintains that the error in the provisional result card
issued by respondent No.3 was not on account of any
fault on her part. The mistake was directly attributable to

Page 3

W.P. No. 5165 of 2014

respondent No.3 who acknowledged the same and

corrected the result. Therefore she cannot be penalized
for the error to which the petitioner was not a party.
6.

The learned counsel for the respondent has

vehemently opposed the petition. He submits that the

respondents carry out onerous duty of ensuring proper
and transparent processing of 3300 seats in public sector
medical

and

dental

colleges

after

processing

approximately 41000 applications. The task involved in

determination of merit for the 3300 seats on the basis of
PMDC's formula is a large scale, highly sensitive,
competitive and time consuming exercise. For its
efficient, objective and timely completion (being crucial
for timely commencement of classes), the admission
policy stipulates inter alia the following limitations which
are applicable to all candidates: Revision of result or improvement of marks
by any Board, after submission of Admission
Form, shall not effect the merit list of
admission for the current year in any way
7.

He, therefore, submits that any interference by this

Court at this stage in the process necessitating revision of

merit list would lead to disruption of the entire exercise,
open a Pandora box and lead to multiple litigation, which
would not be in the interest of process, the institution and

Page 4

W.P. No. 5165 of 2014

most importantly the students and candidates. He submits

that even otherwise, there is no likelihood of any
substantial difference in the status of the petitioner, even
if for the sake of arguments and without conceding, the
petitioners name was to be included in a revised merit
list.
8.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties

and carefully examined the record. The question

requiring determination by this Court is whether, at this
stage, this Court, in exercise of its extra ordinary
constitutional jurisdiction, would interfere in this matter
and issue the direction sought. On hearing the learned
counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, our
response to the question is in the negative for the
following reasons: a.

The respondents carry out the function of

ensuring proper and transparent admissions against

3300 seats in public sector medical and dental
colleges. In this regard, approximately 41000
applications are processed on annual basis and a
merit list is prepared in line with the formula set by
the

Pakistan

(PM&DC)

Medical
to

fill

and
the

Dental

said

seats

Council
fairly,

transparently and strictly in accordance with merit.

This is a large scale, competitive and time

W.P. No. 5165 of 2014

Page 5

consuming exercise. The most important aspect of

this exercise is that it is time bound and has to be
completed within a specified time in order to
enable classes to commence. With the above
objective in mind, as a matter of policy, it has been
decided at the relevant level that the marks
mentioned in the admission forum shall be final
and will not be revised, added, subtracted or
modified for any reason, at least for that particular
academic year. The rationale for that is not
difficult to understand. As noted above, the
exercise of receiving admission forms conducting
entry tests, tabulating results and formulating merit
within the specific time frame is an onerous and
sensitive exercise and cannot be repeated over and
over again. In case candidates are allowed to
submit documents and seek revision of results at
subsequent stage, it would be an unending exercise
and would defeat the very purpose for which this
exercise is undertaken. Therefore, it is neither fair
nor expedient to second guess the policy and direct
the respondents to make an exception in case of
the petitioner. It may be noted that she is not
precluded, if the rules permit from applying again
for the next academic session when applications

W.P. No. 5165 of 2014

Page 6

are sought for admission to medical / dental

college in the next academic year.
b.

Perusal of the prospectus circulated by The

University of Health Sciences, Lahore, a copy

whereof was also available to the petitioner,
indicates that it has specifically and categorically
been stated in the prospectus that: Revision of result or improvement of
marks by any Board after the
submission of Admission Form shall
not affect the merit list of admission
for the current year in any way. In
other words, revised marks certificate
shall not be acceptable once the
candidate has submitted his / her
Admission Form.
c.

Our attention has also been drawn to the

advertisement which was published by the

respondent university inviting applications for
medical / dental colleges. It is clearly and
unambiguously stated in that advertisement that
after submission of admission forms, change in
marks obtained for F.Sc for any reason will not be
acceptable. The petitioner had submitted her forms
after having accepted the terms and conditions of

Page 7

W.P. No. 5165 of 2014

the prospectus. She cannot be heard at this stage to

take a different position. As stated above, if an
exception is made for the petitioner, a Pandoras
box is likely to be opened and any number of
candidates whose results may have been revised
would

approach

the

respondents

for

reconsideration of the matter and revision of the

merit list, which would throw the entire system
into disarray. This would not only derail the
process and delay the commencement of classes
but would also inevitably lead to a deluge of
litigation by parties who may want to benefit from
the said exception and those who may be affected
by it.
d.

While we feel sympathetic to the petitioner

as she may have suffered some grievance on

account of an error on the part of the respondent
No.3, we find that such error may not have
damaged the carrier of the petitioner insofar as she
has been admitted to one of the best dental
colleges of Punjab namely De Montmorency
College of Dentistry, Lahore. Further, in case, she
feels that addition of 02 marks may entitle her to
admission in a medical college, she is not
precluded from doing that by filing a fresh

W.P. No. 5165 of 2014

Page 8

application for the next academic year. We may

also observe that the learned counsel for the
respondent university has asserted that there is no
likelihood of the petitioners position improving so
considerably that she may be entitled to admission
in a medical college by addition of 02 marks to her
score. Even otherwise, it is settled law that
individual grievances must give way to public
good. By creating an exception and overriding the
settled policy, which was within the knowledge of
the petitioner, the entire process of admission
would be disrupted and the merit list which has
since been finalized would be thrown into disarray
for which we do not find any lawful justification at
this stage. The actions of the respondent university
are supported by its prospectus as well as
judgments of this Court as well as Honble
Supreme Court of Pakistan.
e.

Two different Division Benches of this

Court in identical matters have declined to

interfere on the basis of revised result cards.
Reference in this regard can usefully be made to
judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 2400 of 2010
(Atiq Rasheed Vs. University of Health Sciences
etc.) as well as W.P. No. 247 of 2014 (Muhammad

Page 9

W.P. No. 5165 of 2014

Areef Haider Vs. Chairman Admission Board etc.)

in which interference was declined. We find no
justification to disagree with the view taken by 02
different Benches of this Court.
f.

In addition to the above, we find that this

Court has also on repeated occasions declined to

interfere in matters of university policies. In this
regard, reference may be made to Ahmad Abdullah
and 62 others Vs. Government of the Punjab and 3
others (PLD 2003 Lahore 752), where a Division
Bench of this Court held as follows: Sitting in the Constitutional
jurisdiction this Court would not like
to enter into the policy making
domain of the State or question the
legislative wisdom. This is in line with
the law laid down by the august
Supreme Court in Muhammad Iqbal
Rafi v. the Province of Punjab Lahore
and others 1986 SCMR 680 and Prof.
Noor

Muhammad Khan

Marwat,

Principal, Lucky Marwat College of

Education

and

Research,

Lakki

Marwat Vs. Vice Chancellor, Gomal

Page 10

W.P. No. 5165 of 2014

University, Dera Ismail Khan and 2

other PLD 2001 Supreme Court 219.
The learned Legal Advisor for
the respondent / University has
further referred to the judgment
reported as Shafique Ahmed and
others vs. Government of Punjab and
others (PLD 2004 Supreme Court
168) wherein the judgment of the Full
Court reported as PLD 2003 Lahore
752 has been upheld.
We respectfully follow the ratio of the aforenoted judgment.
9.

For reasons recorded above, we do not find any

merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.

(ABID AZIZ SHEIKH)

JUDGE
!M.A.W!

Approved for reporting.

(IJAZ UL AHSAN)
JUDGE