No law, rule or policy can be framed against injunctions of Islam in manner to discriminate citizen

PLJ 2013 AJ&K 76 (FB)

Present: Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, CJ., Munir Ahmed Chaudhary & M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi, JJ.

SHERIJ KHAN & others--Petitioners

versus

AZAD GOVT. OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR through its Chief Secretary & others--Respondents

W.P. No. 1829 of 2012, decided on 31.12.2012.

AZ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974--

----Ss. 3, 4(8), 15, 17 & 4--Notification for reservation of seats for MBBS course--No law, rule or policy can be framed against injunctions of Islam in manner to discriminate citizen--Violative of fundamental rights--Notification was challenged--Validity--Petition was refused on ground that petitioner was not an aggrieved person because neither he was member of parliament nor his any other tangible interest was violated--Even if seats reserved for doctor's children and overseas quota were declared ultra vires of Constitution and added in general merit of district wise quota, therefore, petitioners were not aggrieved, hence were not entitled to any relief--Petitioners had not bothered to amend the petition, therefore, without affording an opportunity of hearing to those candidates who had been nominated on basis of notification under challenge no writ can be issued--High Court directed Govt. to revisit notification and provide a legal cover to medical colleges.        [Pp. 85, 87 & 88] A, B, C & D

Raja Amjad Ali Khan, Advocate for Petitioners.

Sardar Shahid Hameed Khan, Advocate for Respondents No. 1 to 6.

Mr. Abdul Rasheed Abasi, Advocate for Respondents No. 7 to 13.

Mr. Mansoor Sultan, Advocate for PM&DC.

Date of hearing: 31.12.2012.

Order

Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, CJ.--M/s. Sherij Khan, Muqadas Mushtaq, Kalsoom Shareef and Awais Qayoom, through this petition filed under Section 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, have challenged the vires of Government. Notification No. SH/I/(24)1 Part-II/2011 dated 31.01.2012, whereby seats for MBBS course have been allocated to the different categories; on the grounds that the same is violative of Section 3 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, as no law, rule or policy can be framed against the injunctions of Islam and in a manner to discriminate the citizens. It is further alleged that all the citizens are equal before law and liable to be treated as such. It is claimed that due to reservation of the quota/seats for overseas Kashmiris and Doctors' children, a privileged class has been created by the Government which is violative of fundamental rights Nos. 4(8),(15) and (17) guaranteed by the interim Constitution Act, 1974.

Petition has been resisted by the respondents by filing separate written statements. Their defence is that the Executive Committee was necessary party and no writ can be issued in its absence. It is further claimed that petitioners are not aggrieved and the petition has been filed in violation of sub-rule (2) of Rule 32 of the AJ&K High Court Procedure Rules, 1984. It is also claimed that petition is premature because nomination has not been made yet. In the written statement filed on behalf of Respondents No. 7 to 13 it is pleaded that petitioners are not aggrieved because it is not disclosed by them in the petition that how they are aggrieved or they have been deprived of any right or tangible interest due to reservation of quota for overseas Kashmiris and Doctors' children. Petition has been filed for academic discussion and such like petitions are not entertained by the Courts. It is further claimed that petitioners have also applied for seats in Medical Colleges against the quota reserved for District Muzaffarabad and Hattian Bala, therefore, they are estopped by their conduct and cannot challenge the allocation of seats and their petition is not maintainable on the basis of principle of approbation and reprobation. Moreover, petition is mala fide because petitioners have deliberately and without any reasonable justification have picked up the quota of two categories, whereas the reservation of quota for other categories like district wise quota, quota for J&K refugees settled in Pakistan etc., has not been challenged by them. It is submitted that students who have applied for admission and have been allocated seats against district wise quota as well as quota for overseas Kashmiris, Doctors' children are necessary party and no writ can be issued without impleading them as party. It is further submitted by them that admission in the Medical Colleges are regulated by PM&DC regulations which also recognize the allocation of the quota under challenge. Hence, notification issued by the Government is in line with the PM&DC regulations. The plea of discrimination pointed out in the petition is also refuted on the ground that in various professional institutions, universities and civil services, quota has been reserved for different categories for the purpose of admission of the children of civil servants, therefore, the reservation of quota for Doctors' sons is not an arbitrary act of the Government.

Raja Amjad Ali Khan, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, vehemently argued that the reservation of seats for overseas Kashmiris and Doctors' children is violative of the fundamental rights No. 8, 15 and 17 enshrined in Section 4(4) of the Constitution which guaranteed that all the state subjects are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law. He argued that the discriminatory treatment is also prohibited by the Holy Quran and Sharia. He further argued that vide notification dated 31.01.2012, a privileged class has been created without any reasonable classification, therefore, petitioners' fundamental right of equality before law and equal protection of law has been infringed and jeopardized. The learned Advocate maintained that the apex Court of Pakistan has already declared the reservation of seats on the basis of quota ultra vires, of the constitution; therefore, respondents are not vested with any authority to reserve seats for the aforesaid categories that too, without any statutory backing. The learned Advocate placed reliance on case titled Mst. Attiyya Bibi Khan and others vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary of Education (Ministry of Education) Civil Secretariat, Islamabad and others reported as [2001 SCMR 1161].

Mr. Abdul Rasheed Abbasi, the learned Advocate appearing for the private respondents, vehemently argued that petitioners are not aggrieved because due to issuance of notification under challenge they have not been deprived of any right and no averment to that effect is made in the writ petition and in the prayer clause. The learned Advocate argued that it is not sufficient to state that a person is a strong candidate for any job or admission rather it is necessary that due to the act or omission under challenge, one has suffered a loss or at least deprived of a tangible interest. The learned Advocate maintained that as the petitioners have selected for admission, therefore, their right of admission has been secured and they cannot file writ petition just for academic discussion. The learned Advocate contended that jurisdiction conferred on this Court is not unlimited rather it can be exercised subject to restriction placed in Section 44 of the Interim Constitution Act, 1974. The learned Advocate maintained that 1st condition for invoking writ jurisdiction of High Court, except for writs of Quo Warranto and Habeas Corpus, is that the petitioner must be an aggrieved person and where this condition is missing the Court will refuse to exercise the jurisdiction. In support of his submissions, the learned Advocate placed reliance on the following case law:--

1.         Ghias ul Haq and others Vs. Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir etc. [PLD 1980 SC (AJK) 5];

2.         Muhammad Malik Vs. Karam Elahi & another [2011 SCR 431];

3.         Ch. Muhammad Yasin Vs. Sardar Muhammad Naeem Khan and 3 others [2010 SCR 17];

4.         Asif Hussain Vs. Azad Govt. and 47 others [2008 SCR 619]; and

5.         Raja Iqbal Rasheed Minhas Vs. AJ&K Council and 3 others [2001 SCR 530].

By referring to the prayer clause, it is next argued by the learned Advocate that the writ petition has been filed on wrong assumption of facts. The learned Advocate contended that the number of seats given in Para 2 of the prayer clause is not correct. The total number of seats is 100 out of which 10 seats have been reserved for open merit and 65 have been reserved for district wise quota. The learned Advocate argued that even otherwise petitioners are estopped by their conduct to challenge the notification because they have challenged the reservation of quota for overseas Kashmiris and Doctors' children despite the fact that they themselves have claimed benefit and admission on the basis of district quota reserved by the same notification. According to the learned Advocate if it is assumed that petitioners are aggrieved from reservation of quota even then they cannot be granted relief on the principle of approbation and reprobation because the district quota against which the petitioners have been admitted is reserved on account of place of birth and the Constitution does not provide such reservation. By referring to the written statement and documents appended thereto, the learned Advocate contended that Miss Muqadas Mushtaq and Kalsoom Sharif are on merit and others petitioners cannot be admitted even the notification under challenge is quashed and seats reserved for overseas Kashmiris and Doctors' sons are distributed on the basis of district quota, hence, the petitioners cannot be treated aggrieved. The learned Advocate placed reliance on:--

1.         Pakistan and others Vs. Public-at-large and others [PLD 1987 SC 304];

2.         Khiali Khan Vs. Haji Nazir and 4 other [PLD 1997 SC 304]; and

3.         Azad Government of the State of J&K and others Vs. Haji Summandar Khan & others [1995 SCR 259].

The learned Advocate contended that notification under challenge has been issued on 13.01.2012, whereas the writ petition has been filed on 17.09.2012, which is hopelessly time barred. The relief is liable to be refused and has been refused by the apex Court in the cases where infringement of fundamental right has been proved. The learned Advocate placed reliance on Summandar Khan's case 1995 SCR 259, 1996 SCR 7, 1993 SCMR 168, 2010 SCR 215 and 2000 SCR 97. The learned Advocate contended that seats have been reserved for the state subjects including the refugees settled in Pakistan and the residence of occupied Kashmir, students from Gilgit, therefore, quashment of the notification will be against the policy of the Government which create inconvenience and would also be injurious to the national interest. The learned Advocate argued that the overseas Kashmiris' quota has been recognized by PM&DC Regulations; while acting on these Regulations the Government has reserved the quota for overseas Kashmiris and the Doctors' children, therefore, without challenging the PM&DC Rules the notification in question cannot be struck down. The learned Advocate contended that if the reservation of quota is declared as unconstitutional even then the judgment will be prospective because the merit list has been finalized and published and a vested right stood accrued to the selected candidates who are not before the Court. The same view was taken in Attiyya Bibi's case [2001 SCMR 1161]. The learned Advocate contended that quota has been recognized by the Government of Azad Jammu & Kashmir in civil service and the same is duly acted upon in various professional institutions. He referred to the prospectus of different institutions in support of his submissions. Besides documentary evidence, the learned Advocate placed reliance on 2010 SCR 186 and 1999 SCR 243. The learned Advocate further contended that the Government is competent to frame Rules, reserve quota and make a reasonable classification in order to provide equal opportunities to the differently placed state subjects who have no equal opportunity of study. He argued that the Courts though have power of judicial review even of the administrative orders and the Government policy regarding the quota cannot be quashed because the same is not violative of any law. In support of his submissions, the learned Advocate placed reliance on [PLJ 1999 SC AJK 190]. The learned Advocate lastly argued that the rule of law laid down in Attiyya Bibi's case supra cannot be made applicable in Azad Kashmir because the judgment has been handed down keeping in view the various provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan whereas in Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, the similar provisions are not available.

Mr. Mansoor Sultan, the learned Advocate appearing for PM&DC and Sardar Shahid Hameed Khan, the learned Advocate appearing for Respondents No. 1 to 6, adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Abdul Rasheed Abbasi. Mr. Mansoor Sultan, the learned Advocate for PM&DC, referred to different provisions of the PM&DC Regulations, 2010 and identified the quota recognized by the PM&DC for the different categories. He argued that reservation of seats is the administrative business of the Government and PM&DC only insist not to reassess total allocation of seats.

The learned Advocate for the petitioners in rebuttal has submitted that so far as objection regarding prayer clause raised by the learned Advocate for the respondents is concerned, an application for correction of the number of seats in prayer clause is on the record, this mistake can be corrected at any time and relief cannot be refused to the petitioners on this ground. The learned Advocate submitted that to be an aggrieved person one has not proved loss of vested right rather if loss of tangible interest is shown then relief cannot be refused on the ground that a petitioner before the Court is not aggrieved..

After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties we have gone through the record.

It may be stated that after establishment of the two medical colleges in Azad Jammu & Kashmir, the Government of AJK has issued the notification for reservation of seats, whereby seats have been reserved for different categories. For proper appreciation of the controversy the same is reproduced as under:--

"Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir

(Secretariat Health)

"Muzaffarabad"
Dated: 13th Jan, 2012.

Notification:

No. SH/I/(24)1 Part-II/2011. In suppression of Notification No. SH/I/(24)1 Part-II/2011 dated 10th of January, 2012, the President of Azad Jammu & Kashmir has been pleased to accord approval of the allocation of M.B.B.S seats for each medical college of Azad Jammu & Kashmir as first admission for current year, keeping in view, shortage of time to start the classes as per scheduled period.

1.         Reserve seats                                       25

2.         Open merit                                           10

3.         District/ Refugee quota
            prevailing in Azad
            Jammu and Kashmir                            65

            Total                                                    100

In case any seat remains unfulfilled, it will be added to open merit.

Detail of reserve seats in each medical college is as under:

1          Punjab                                                 02

2.         Sindh                                                   02

3.         Blochistan                                            02

4.         KPK                                                     04

5.         FATA                                                  01

6.         Overseas Kashmiri                               05

7.         Gilgit Baltistan                                     05

8.         Occupied Kashmir                               02

9.         Doctor's Children                                 01

10        Disabled Students                                01

            Total                                                    25

(Abdul Latif Shah)
Additional Secretary Health "

The constitutional jurisdiction has been conferred on this Court by Section 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, subject to the other provisions of the Act and restrictions imposed by Section 44 of the said Act. One of the fundamental conditions and requirements is that in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under the abovementioned section, an applicant must be an aggrieved person. Only two exceptions are provided by the section itself i.e. Section 44(2)(b)(i) and (ii) which deals with writ of Quo Warranto and Habeas Corpus. In view of above, the first question which needs to be resolved is as to whether petitioners, herein, are aggrieved person within the purview of Section 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 and are entitled to file the petition. The proposition has been considered in numbers of cases by this Court and the apex Court, some of them have been referred to by the learned Advocates for the parties. In Ghiasul Haq's case supra, some petitions were filed by civil servants before this Court, whereby vires of Azad Jammu & Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977, were challenged. After necessary proceedings the petitions were accepted. It was argued before the apex Court that petitioners who were granted relief by this Court were not aggrieved because they sought a declaration simpliciter. Due to grant of simpliciter declaration wrong done to them cannot be rescinded because for that purpose an independent forum was available. The apex Court after examining the case law on the subject observed as under:--

"Could, in the circumstances, the High Court give any direction to the Government for enforcement of the said fundamental rights, knowing fully well that it was not seized of any matter concerning the writ petitions? The answer has to be in negative. And if this is so the petition, as framed, was not maintainable under Section 44 (c) because the High Court cannot under the said constitutional provision grant a declaration simpliciter, nor anyone can move the Court pro bono publico to challenge the vires of a law on the ground that the same offends against any provision of the Constitution. The person who seeks a command from the High Court for enforcement of fundamental right must first show with reference to admitted or proved facts, as to how he is an aggrieved person; from that particular act or action he feels aggrieved, and to which authority he wishes the writ of the High Court to be directed. Otherwise, he must fail.

At Page 42 it was observed by the apex Court as under:--

"----------that a law, even if it is unconstitutional, cannot be declared as invalid so long as law does not practically affect the rights of somebody. In the instant case the High Court was also faced with the similar situation. The writ petitioners had frankly conceded that the validity of the action taken and order passed against them could only be gone into by Service Tribunal. They merely wanted an abstract declaration from the High Court that sub-rules (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 6 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977, were ultra vires of Fundamental Right No. 15 contained in Section 4 of the Constitution Act."

While concluding the proposition, at page 43, the apex Court observed as under:--

"28. Thus it would appear that there was no case before the High Court and we hold that writ petitions, as framed, challenging in abstract the vires of the rules, were not competent, because under causes (a) and (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 44, the writ petitioners must have disclosed the controversy or lis to bring their cases within the requirements of the conditional provisions viz., that "they should be aggrieved party" or "aggrieved persons". This being a condition precedent to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, the High Court was not justified in entertaining the writ petitions unless the respondents herein were aggrieved party or persons claiming relief in respect of an order adversely affecting them."

In Muhammad Malik Vs. Karam Elahi and another [2011 SCR 431] the apex Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir has considered the term aggrieved/aggrieved person with reference to the various provisions of Hadood and Qisas laws. The ratio of the other cited case is same, hence, need not to be discussed. It is correct that to qualify as an aggrieved person a right in strict juristic sense may not vest in a person yet he must at least show that he has some interest that respondents should act in accordance with law.

In Umer Din Kiani Vs. Azad Government and 2 others [1995 SCR 166] the matter again came up for consideration before the apex Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. At Page 170 of the report it was observed as under:

"The Service Tribunal has rightly held that under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act an appeal can only be field before the Service Tribunal by an aggrieved civil servant but the appellant before us cannot be termed as aggrieved. As already noted by us, under Section 8 of the Civil Servants Act a person can only be promoted to a higher post if he possesses minimum qualification prescribed for the higher post. It means that the appellant cannot be promoted to the post under dispute. Although it is not necessary to qualify as an aggrieved person that a right in a strict juristic sense should be vested in him, yet a person must at least show that he has some interest that the respondents should act in accordance with law. The appellant does not seem to fulfill even this condition. Even if the objections raised by him are accepted and consequently the appointment of Respondent No. 3 is held to be invalid no benefit would accrue to the appellant because he is not eligible for promotion to the disputed post. The points raised by him may more appropriately be raised in a writ of quo warranto which can be filed by any person as distinguished from an aggrieved party. Therefore, we uphold the view taken by the Service Tribunal that the appeal filed by the appellant was not maintainable before the Service Tribunal."

A full bench of this Court has also considered the proposition in Noor-ul-Amin's   case,   who  challenge  an  amendment  effected  in  the  Interim Constitution Act, 1974, on the ground that the same is violative of the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution. The petition was refused on the ground that petitioner, therein, is not an aggrieved person because neither he is a Member of the Parliament nor his any other tangible interest has been violated. The full bench of this Court pleased to observe as under:--

"6. In the present case, the alleged grievance is to be redressed in the light of the provisions contained under sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 44. Thus, it is imperative that before laying hands on merits of the proposition under consideration, it ensure and satisfy that the petitioner is an aggrieved party as contemplated under the Constitution. The petitioner is a citizen of Azad Jammu & Kashmir and an Advocate. He claims his designation as Chairman of the foreign Relations Board of Jammu and Kashmir Liberation League. It is alleged that the aforesaid facts qualify him as an aggrieved person as contemplated under the Constitution, as such, he is competent to challenge the vires and propriety of the impugned amendment of the Constitution. He has demonstrated his grievance by describing himself as a disgruntled subject, disillusioned elector and an extremely disenchanted office-bearer of a political party.

7.  Ordinarily, an aggrieved person is he who suffers a grievance by loss of any interest or right in consequence of an act or omission caused by an order, decision or action of a tribunal or authority or person. The term "aggrieved person" received attention of the superior Courts of the subcontinent in various cases from time to time. The consensus is that a person is deemed as "aggrieved person" when he satisfies that he suffered loss of the curtailment of a privilege or right in consequence of non-performance of a duty. In this context, it is emphasized that the claimant must show any evasion or injury to his personal interest by an act or omission in order to bring his case within the purview of an aggrieved person. In Muhammad Younus's case (1), Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, the learned Judge who spoke for the Court, described the term "aggrieved person" in the following manner:--

"In order that a person is an `aggrieved person' within the meaning of Article 98 he may not have right in strict juristic sense but he must show that he had a `personal interest in the performance of the legal duty' and that the non-performance of the duty is to result in the loss of some `personal benefit or advantage or the curtailment of a privilege'. Unless he shows that he will lose `some benefit or advantage which he would have gained if the order was in accordance with law', he cannot be an aggrieved person."

8.  In Jalal Din's case (3), Mr. Justice Muhammad Yaqub Ali, who delivered the verdict on behalf of the Court maintained that under Article 98 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1962), writ petition could be filed only by a person aggrieved and, as such, relief granted must be in relation to his grievance and not the grievance of any third person. In Ghias-ul-Haq's case (4), Mr. Justice Chaudhry Rahim Dad Khan, CJ. (as he then was) construed the provisions of law relating to enforcement of fundamental rights (Section 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution Act) and observed that no one can move the High Court pro bono publico to challenge vires of a law. Person seeking High Court's command for enforcement of a fundamental right must first show how he felt aggrieved. The learned Chief Justice elaborated his observation by making critical analysis of the case-law on the proposition.

8.  Reference to the above authorities is made to show that a person desirous of invoking the authority of the High Court under Section 44 clauses (a) and (c) of the Constitution, must first satisfy that he is an aggrieved person. Unless this condition is fulfilled, High Court cannot be moved to annul a law resulting in the benefit of a third party. We have noticed in the present case that the impugned amendment obviously operates as a restriction on the vote of a member of the Assembly alone. Its obvious impact confines to the effect of vote of a member of the Assembly cast in favour of a resolution for a vote of no-confidence against the Prime Minister. The petitioner is not a member of the Assembly nor he can claim so by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, he is unable to show that the impugned amendment has affected his interest right or privilege expressly or impliedly. In our estimation, the real aggrieved person, if at all one is aggrieved it is a member of the Assembly alone."

The matter was again considered by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir apex Court in Raja Iqbal Rasheed Minhas, Advocate's case [PLD 2002 SC(AJ&K) 182] and after detailed survey of case law on the point in Paras 11 and 14 of the report, it was observed as under:--

11.  Except the above referred authority from Karachi jurisdiction, the High Courts of Pakistan, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Court and Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir are unanimously of the opinion that a writ can be entertained only on the application of an aggrieved person and not by a pro bono publico litigant. In other words a person whose interests have been adversely affected by the impugned legislation or order under challenge, he can competently file a writ petition and then file an appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court as required by law.

14.  It may also be pointed out that there is a wide difference between a writ of certiorari and a writ of habeas corpus or a writ of quo warranto. Except the writ of habeas corpus and the writ of quo warranto which can be invoked by any person, the other writs can be prayed for only by an aggrieved person. It may be stated generally that an aggrieved party is not in a writ of prohibition whose rights are threatened, in writ of mandamus whose rights are being denied and in writ of certiorari whose rights have been affected by a decision. The word "right" is not used here in strict juristic sense. It if sufficient if the person alleging to be an aggrieved has a personal interest in the performance of a legal duty which if not performed would result in the loss of some personal advantage. A party who stands to lose or gain an advantage by observance or non-observance of law is an aggrieved party. A person aggrieved must be a person who has suffered a legal grievance, a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongly deprived to him of something, or wrongfully refused him something of wrongfully affected his title to something. The petitioner being not falling in any of the categories, mentioned above, had not competence to lodge either the writ petition or an appeal in this Court against the impugned judgment of the High Court.

As the Petitioners No. 1 and 2 have been admitted in the relevant sessions and Petitioners No. 3 and 4 cannot be admitted, even if the seats reserved for doctors' children and overseas quota are declared ultra vires of the constitution and are added in the general merit or district wise quota, therefore, petitioners, herein are not aggrieved; hence, are not entitled to any relief. Even otherwise, respondents have appended merit list with the written statement indicating the nominations of the candidates against their respective quota including the categories under challenge. The petitioners have not bothered to amend the petition, therefore, without affording an opportunity of hearing to those candidates who have been nominated on the basis of notification under challenge no writ can be issued in view of the principle laid down in Attiyya Bibi Khan's case 2001 SCMR 1161, wherein in Para 50 of the report the apex Court of Pakistan observed as under:--

"For the aforesaid facts, circumstances and reasons I am inclined to declare reservation of seats for all categories in Medical Colleges illegal and without lawful authority, except for disabled persons within the meaning of Disabled Persons (Employment and  Rehabilitation)  Ordinance,  1981  districts  as  well as Azad Kashmir and Northern Area, Afghan Refugees who have taken school and intermediate education in the educational institutions situated within those areas and students of foreign countries on reciprocal basis for period of seven years for the time being. I agree that C.P.L.A. No. 1905/2000 is without any merit and must be dismissed. CPL.A. Nos. 1979 and 1980 of 2000 re: Miss Nida Zulfiqar V. Government of Punjab and others and Miss Sana Arshad V. Government of Punjab and others seeking admission against seats earlier reserved for doctors' sons and daughters even after abolition of such seats by the Medical Colleges are dismissed for the reasons stated hereinabove."

In view of above, the petition stands dismissed, however, we direct the Government to revisit the notification dated 31.01.2012 to the extent of quota reserved for categories under challenge in view of the law laid down in Attiyya Bibi Khan's case, 2001 SCMR 1161 supra. We also direct the Government to provide a legal cover to Medical Colleges set up in Azad Jammu and Kashmir in order to stream line their business/admissions at par with the Province of Punjab and for that purpose Punjab Medical and Health institution Act, 2003 can be adapted with suitable amendments.

(R.A.)  Petition dismissed