Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Violating PMDC Rules & Regulations & operation of Medical Classes before registration.

Summary: Partition Act (IV of 1893)--- ----S. 3(1)---Suit for partition---Sharer undertook to buy---Procedure---Valuation of share--- Determination--- Defendants were running same business which their father was running from the same premises---Defendants had wilfully not attended the office of Official Assignee---Effect---High Court directed Official Assignee to seal godown immediately and ensure compliance of earlier order pending determination of right of plaintiffs in income generated from business of their deceased father---Compliance report of sealing godown in question should be submitted by Official Assignee---Application was disposed of accordingly.

Summary: PLJ 2014 Quetta 112 Present Qazi Faez Isa CJ Dr ABDUL RASHEED and another - - Petitioners versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN HEALTH DEPARTMENT through its Secretary and 51 others - - Respondents CP No 252 of 2012 decided on 142014 Constitution of Pakistan 1973 - - - - - - Art 199 - - Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (Postgraduate Education) Regulations 2001 Scope - - Medical and Dental CouncilO rdinance 1962 S 33 - - Rules of Business 1976 R 45 - - Educationali nstitution - - Postgraduate education - - Distribution of major seats on zonal allocation - - Letters - - Difference of opinion arose between two judges of High Court - - Referred to Chief Justice for constitution of Larger Bench - - If matter ofN TS is referred back for decision it will further delay process of admission and that point need not be decided for time being - - Question of - - Whether High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art 199 of Constitution can determine suitability of admission criteria to educational institution whether admission to institution can be made on basis of quota stipulated in impugned letter - - Validity - - Point of difference can be formulated and same decided by referee judge - - Before proceed to formulate the points of difference to determine the controversy need to be able to properly appreciate the disagreement - - Petitioners who were medical doctors were aggrieved by institution whether distributing the seats on the basis of Divisions constituted by Government of Balochistan was permissible and whether impugned letter violates Charter of Institute PMDCR egulations andor Constitution of Pakistan - - Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (Postgraduate Education) Regulations 2001 made pursuant to Section 33o f Medical and Dental Council Ordinance 1962 sets out requirements for postgraduate education - - Since Institute is affiliated with PMDC it must abideb y PMDC Regulations and failure to do so may result in de - affiliation of Institute and or PMDC not recognizing degrees awarded by institute andr endering such degrees mere pieces of paper - - Admittedly Institute provides technical and professional education at highest level to medical doctors dentists therefore Institute must be equally accessible to all on basis of merit There is also a fundamental premise on which entire Constitution of Pakistan rests which is also stipulated as a Fundamental Right and that is equality all citizens - - Charter of institute PMDC Regulations andC onstitution of Pakistan prescribe that admissions be given on basis of merit alone therefore petitioners and respondent numbers 41 to 52 who support petitioners had rights accrued in their favour which were being infringed - - Impugned letter which does not have even status of law violated Constitution of Pakistan and therefore is ultra vires Constitution - - Petition was maintainable and High Court whilst exercising jurisdiction under Art 199 of Constitution can refrain official respondents from granting admissions to institute on basis of impugned letter that allocates scats to different Divisions which neither Charter of Institute PMDCR egulations or institution of Pakistan permit - - Therefore official respondents should admit applicants to Institute strictly on basis of merit - - Distinguished colleagues had delivered their respective judgments on assumption that impugned letter was issued on approval of competent authority - - Working of Government cannot be on basis of conjunctures and surmises - - Minister of Health had not approved summary nor is there anything to indicate that CM had approved it and cannot bring myself to presume that he had - - Without approval of Minister Chief Minister issuance of impugned letter was clearly without approval of competent authority - - Lack of authority is further confirmed by fact that when applications were solicited by Institute vide advertisement no mention therein was made of distribution of seats on basis of six Divisions [Pp 115 116 121 123 124 125 126 128 132 133] A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Mr Muhammad Qahir Shah Advocate for Petitioners Mr SAM Qadri Advocate for Respondents Nos 3 to 40 Mr Naseebullah Tareen Advocate for Respondent Nos 41 to 52Judgement Result:Order accordingly

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.