AIRLINK 81.10 Increased By ▲ 2.55 (3.25%)
BOP 4.82 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (1.05%)
CNERGY 4.09 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-1.68%)
DFML 37.98 Decreased By ▼ -1.31 (-3.33%)
DGKC 93.00 Decreased By ▼ -2.65 (-2.77%)
FCCL 23.84 Decreased By ▼ -0.32 (-1.32%)
FFBL 32.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.77 (-2.35%)
FFL 9.24 Decreased By ▼ -0.13 (-1.39%)
GGL 10.06 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-0.89%)
HASCOL 6.65 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (1.68%)
HBL 113.00 Increased By ▲ 3.50 (3.2%)
HUBC 145.70 Increased By ▲ 0.69 (0.48%)
HUMNL 10.54 Decreased By ▼ -0.19 (-1.77%)
KEL 4.62 Decreased By ▼ -0.11 (-2.33%)
KOSM 4.12 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-3.29%)
MLCF 38.25 Decreased By ▼ -1.15 (-2.92%)
OGDC 131.70 Increased By ▲ 2.45 (1.9%)
PAEL 24.89 Decreased By ▼ -0.98 (-3.79%)
PIBTL 6.25 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-1.42%)
PPL 120.00 Decreased By ▼ -2.70 (-2.2%)
PRL 23.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.45 (-1.85%)
PTC 12.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.89 (-6.85%)
SEARL 59.95 Decreased By ▼ -1.23 (-2.01%)
SNGP 65.50 Increased By ▲ 0.30 (0.46%)
SSGC 10.15 Increased By ▲ 0.26 (2.63%)
TELE 7.85 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.13%)
TPLP 9.87 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.2%)
TRG 64.45 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.08%)
UNITY 26.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-0.33%)
WTL 1.33 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.76%)
BR100 8,052 Increased By 75.9 (0.95%)
BR30 25,581 Decreased By -21.4 (-0.08%)
KSE100 76,707 Increased By 498.6 (0.65%)
KSE30 24,698 Increased By 260.2 (1.06%)

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) held that a selection board for admission to MBBS may relax the time limit and allow additional time for a candidate to file the requisite documents.

The court passed this order in a petition of a student, Abdul Rehman Amjad, and observed, “The name of the petitioner be deemed among the candidates selected for admission to MBBS first-year class for the session 2022-23”.

The court allowed the petition and declared that the non-selection of the petitioner in the first-year MBBS class for the session 2022-23 was illegal and unauthorized as the petitioner was clearly deprived of a chance to submit the domicile certificate.

The court said the object of a prescribed period of time for filing of documents is to clear the question of selection when the candidate appears before the selection board.

If he had failed to attach the same with the application originally, the chairman admission board in all fairness should have intimated to the petitioner before discarding his name from the final merit list of the selected candidates that he had failed to submit the domicile certificate, the court added.

The court directed the Higher Education University that the petitioner shall be allowed provisionally to join the classes without disturbing any candidate and his candidature shall be regularized in the eventuality of vacation of a seat by any candidate in the future, the court added.

The court further directed the respondents to initiate the process simultaneously for the creation of one extra seat only for the petitioner, which shall be ended automatically in the aforementioned eventuality of vacation of a seat by either of the students.

The court observed there seems to be no reason to interpret that time prescribed in the rule should be so religiously and rigidly observed as to subject the substantive right of a candidate to the production of documents within this limited time schedule.

It said in appropriate cases; therefore, even if the documents are not submitted within the prescribed period, the time could be relaxed.

The court noted that as per the admission schedule, after displaying the final merit list on December 17, 2022, some other selection lists were to be declared till December 31, 2022, and since the petitioner had made up the deficiency by submitting the domicile certificate on December 19, 2022, he should have been adjusted against any seat if had become available in the said lists, the court added.

Another aspect of the matter is that the respondents sent the e-mail to the petitioner on 17.12.2022 at 02:04 p.m. and on the same day, issued the final merit list simultaneously, which indicates that sending the e-mail to the petitioner was just a formality, thereafter he was not granted reasonable time to make up the deficiency, the court said.

Once the respondents afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to fill up the lacuna, he should have been granted reasonable time in this regard, the court added.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023

Comments

Comments are closed.

Truthseeker May 14, 2023 09:53am
What a pity..youth's future has been compromised!
thumb_up Recommended (0)