1989 PLP 923 (MLD)

SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.‑‑Petitioner claims to be student of 3rd year M.B.,B.S. in the Sind Medical College,Karachi, and at present is in custody in Juvenile Jail, Landhi in connection with a murder case. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that prc6ously last year he was allowed to appear in the examination in jail premises and necessary arrangements were made. This year also he took steps to get permission to sit in examination while in custody in jail but he has not been allowed to do so and the said permission is refused unjustifiably by respondent No.1 who is Secretary Department of Health, Government of Sind, Karachi and respondent No.2 who is Principal Sind Medical College, Karachi. Prayer in the petition is that Court may give declaration that petitioner is entitled to appear in Second Professional M.B.,B.S. examination of Sind Medical College and direction may be issued to respondents to hold the said examination in jail premises. Respondent No.3, who is Controller of Examinations of University of Karachi has filed counter‑affidavit in which stand is taken that if previously petitioner was allowed to sit in the examination while in jail, it must be on the basis of application form for examination forwarded by respondent No.2 (Principal SMC, Karachi) after determining and assessing his eligibility to appear m the examination. Eligibility is to be determined according to rules. Respondent No.2 (Principal SMC, Karachi) has filed his counter affidavit in which it is stated that petitioner was permitted to appear in the first professional examination as he had already completed his attendance prior to his arrest. So far his appearance in the examination while in custody in jail is concerned this time, same cannot be allowed for the reason that he has not attended any lectures, demonstrations, tutorials and practicals, etc. pertaining to the courses taught in the third year as such he cannot be certified to be eligible to appear in the examination of third year (IInd Professional). Petitioner in the memorandum of petition has not alleged discrimination specifically but during the arguments Counsel for petitioner submitted that in the past several students had been allowed to sit in the examination while in jail. Respondent No.2 in his counter‑affidavit has explained that in the past petitioner was also allowed when she was found eligible and some other students were also allowed strictly on the basis of eligibility. On behalf of respondent No.4, Dr. Abdul Rahim presently Deputy Secretary (Technicl) Health Department, Government of Surd has filed his counter‑affidavit in which it is stated that section 3 of the Sind Medical Colleges Ordinance, 1987 empowers the Government to make rules subject to Medical Council Ordinance, 1962 inter alia for the purpose of regulation of admission in medical colleges. Rules 6 and 7 embodied in the prospectus for the year 1987‑88 issued on 11‑1‑1988 envisage that no student shall be signed up for any examination unless he/she has attended 3/4 of the lectures, demonstrations, tutorials, practicals, clinical work etc. The Principal of the college may condone for valid reasons deficiency upto five per cent of the lectures each m written paper and practicals/clinics. It a further provided that no candidate falling short IA of attendance (3/4 of the total) shall be permitted to appear in the examination and such candidate may however be permitted to appear at the next examination if he or she attends the requisite number of the lectures and practicals as per rules of the University concerned. The rules highlighted above are also available in the prospectus for the year 1984‑85, which is applicable in the instant case as I stated by Mr. Usman Ghani Counsel for the petitioner. For the facts and reasons mentioned above we are satisfied that according to the Principal Sind Medical College, Karachi (Respondent No.2) petitioner is not eligible to sit in the examination while in custody in jail for the B reason that he has not attended required number of lectures and practicals. No further interference is warranted and this petition has no merit which is dismissed in limine. M.Y.H./E‑26/K Petition dismissed,