P L D 1993 Lahore 341 (PLP)

This judgment shall dispose of W.Ps. Nos. 8277, 8278, 8346, 8470, 8510, 8511, 8612, 8655, 8698 and 9053 of 1992. The petitioners in these petitions are students of medical colleges and feel aggrieved by the Regulation framed by the Vice -Chancellor of the University of Punjab on 13th April, 1992, which is to the following effect:-- "A candidate who fails to clear the First Professiona' M.B., B.S. Examination in four chances availed or unavailed offered by the University, shall cease to be eligible for further Medical/Dental Education. The Regulation shall be applicable to all categories of the, candidates whether they are fresh or failed candidates."

2. Two contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of these petitions. Firstly, that the Vice -Chancellor in the exercise of Emergency Powers under section 15(3) of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973 had no jurisdiction to frame the Regulation in the absence of any recommendation by Academic Council and its approval by the Syndicate. Reference has been made to section 32 of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973 which ordains that "the Regulations shall be prepared by the Academic Council and shall be submitted to the Syndicate which may approve them or withhold approval or refer them back to the Academic Council for reconsideration. He has relied upon University of Punjab and two others v. Rehmatullah (PLD 1982 Lahore 729).

3. Although this contention of the learned counsel has force and is supported by the judgment of this Court but also no relief can be granted to the petitioners in these proceedings inasmuch as admittedly Academic Council met on 15th September, 1992 and approved the Regulation framed by the Vice -Chancellor. The approval was also granted by the Syndicate on 16th September, 1992. That being so, the illegality, if any, in issuing the regulation in question stood cured at least from 9th September, 1992 when the Syndicate 'granted its approval. 4. . Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that as the Vice Chancellor had no jurisdiction at all to frame the regulation, the subsequent approval by the Academic council and Syndicate is of no legal effect. This contention cannot be accepted. According to the own showing of the petitioners, the Academic Council can frame the Regulation subject to its approval by the Syndicate. In the present case, admittedly, Academic Council has met;. it considered the matter and decided to adopt regulation framed by the Vice -Chancellor. This action was approved by the Syndicate. Consequently, there is no reason to hold that notwithstanding this adoption and approval on the part of Academic Council and Syndicate, the regulation is still invalid. It is also to be noted that these Constitutional petitions were filed after approval of the regulation by the Syndicate.

5. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as the petitioners were admitted to M.B., B.S. Class much prior to the framing of regulation, the said regulation cannot be retrospectively applied to them. This contention of the learned counsel is not well-founded. The regulation was approved by the Syndicate on 16th September 1992 and as such, took effect at least from that date. Admittedly, petitioners took their examinations subsequent to the said regulation and were, therefore, governed by the same. The question of retrospectivity consequently does not rise. The petitioners cannot claim as of right that they should continue to be governed by the regulation prevalent at the time of their admission. The Hon'ble Supreme, Court in Miss 'Sultana Khokhar and 2 others v. The University of the Punjab PLD 1962 SC 35) was pleased to observe that candidates have no vested right that they must be examined in accordance necessarily with provisions of a Statute, Ordinance, or Regulation which was prevalent at time of their embarking upon studies of their respective courses. In view of authoritative pronouncement, this contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted.

6. Be that as it may, regulation does not appear to be unreasonable or discriminatory and petitioners are not entitled to exercise discretion in their favour. If a candidate fails to pass the examination even in four attempts, he cannot make any genuine grievance about the denial of sufficient opportunity to clear the examination. It has been pointed out by Ch.Muhammad Farooq, the learned legal advisor of the University, that Pakistan Medical Council which is the body constituted under the Medical Council Ordinance, 1962 for regulating medical profession and laying down courses, met as far as back 20th March, 1988 and directed the University to frame a regulation to the effect that a student, who fails to clear Ist Professional M.B., B.S. Examination in four chances, ceases to be eligible for further studies. This decision of Medical Council was not enforced for a considerable period of time till the matter was again taken up by the Pakistan- Medical and Dental . Council with the University. It was in these circumstances that the Vice- Chancellor had issued the impugned regulation after the matter had been examined by the Board of Studies.

7. It has been further pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in two cases namely W.P.No. 8511/92 and 8470/92 that according to the regulation not only the students who fail in four attempts but also those who do not avail of the chances have been debarred from further studies. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated in that context that the petitioners in W.P. Nos.8511/92 and 8470/92, could not take examination on account of their illness and as such, it was highly unreasonable and unfair to apply the regulation to their cases. Learned Legal Advisor, Ch. Muhammad Farooq, for respondents has undertaken that if that be so, the respondents shall allow the petitioners to take their examination in accordance with the regulation on the subject. As a result what has been stated above, these petitions are without any force and dismissed. However, parties in W.Ps. Nos.8511/92 and 8470/92 may apply to the University for reconsideration of the matter. If such an application is made, it shall be given due consideration as undertaken by Ch. Muhammad Farooq, learned Legal Advisor of the University. No order as to costs. AA./A-365/L Petitions dismissed (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)