1999 PLP 1552 (SCMR)

IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.

This petition under Article 185(3) of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is directed against the order dated 19-12-1997 passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in Review Application No. 182 of 1997 in Writ Petition No. 6515 of 1997.

2. Brief facts are that the petitioner Siraj Ahmad appeared in B.Sc. Physiotherapy Part I Annual Examination of 1989 under Roll No. 15 and failed in Anatomy, Physiology and Kinesiology. He was to reappear in these subjects till Annual Examination of 1991 in terms of the relevant Regulations. He, however, appeared, in three Annual Examinations and failed to submit his admission form for the Supplementary Examination of 1990 held in October, 1991. The following Chart indicates the result etc. of the petitioner in the Examinations held between 1989 to 1998:

"S.No. Roll No. Session Result

1. 15 Annual, 1989 Fail held in June, Anatomy, 1989 Physiology, Kinesiology till A/91. 2. 15 Supplementary Fail 1989 held in Anatomy, March, 1990. Kinesiology till A/91. 3. 33 Annual, 1990, -do - held in January, 1991.

4. Supplementary, Admission 1990 held in form not October 1991. received. 5. 37 Annual, 1991 Fail must held in February, appear in all 1992. subjects next time. 6. 21 Then allowed Appeared in under the Court only in two Orders. Subjects i.e. Anatomy, Kinesiology. Supplementary Result Examination, declared as 199,6 held in 8-R.D.Court August, 1997. Decision Allowed under the Supreme Court of Pakistan orders to appear in the B.SC. Physiotherapy Part II Supplementary Examination, 1996 held in January. 1998.

Roll No.30 Result: Fail Physiotherapy Treatment, Surgery, Electrotherapy. Result declared as R.L. Court Decision."

13. A bare perusal of the above chart would show that the petitioner availed all the chances except that of Supplementary Examination of 1990 wherein he intentionally 'failed to appear and did not submit his admission forms for his examination. This circumstance alone disentitles the petitioner to any additional chance. When faced with this, the petitioner submitted that the High Court has failed to appreciate and consider that he had been meted out discriminatory treatment, in that, Messrs Muhammad Farid and Ch. Sajid Rashid were allowed, to avail more chances in similar circumstances. We, therefore, directed the counsel for the respondent to submit report, which has since been received. It is stated therein that no discriminatory treatment has been meted out to the petitioner qua the aforesaid persons. It would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant passages from report, which read thus:-- "As far as the case of Mr. Muhammad Farid is concerned, he appeared in the B.Sc. Physiotherapy Part 11 Annual Examination of 1991. He availed all the chances and was declared 'Must appear in all the subjects next time'. He was given 5 chanees and not 6 as contended by Mr. Siraj Ahmad. The number of chances availed by Mr. Muhammad Farid and .his result position are given in Annexure 'B'. The case of Mr. Muhammad Sajid is that he appeared in the B.Sc. Physiotherapy Part 11 Annual Examination of 1993 under Roll No.32. Mr. Siraj failed in the examination as a whole. He appeared in all the subjects in the Supplementary Examination of 1993 and failed in the subjects of Medicine, Physiotherapy Treatment. He was as an exempted candidate, allowed four chances to clear the failing papers after having appeared in the Supplementary Examination of 1993. The statement showing the position of chances availed by Mr. Sajid is given in Annexure 'C',

4. In the aforesaid report the plea revolving around the applicability of the then Regulations or the subsequent amendment, was attended to in the following terms:

It may be submitted that the when the new Regulations were framed relating to the B.Sc. Physiotherapy Examinations it was mentioned that only 4 chances be allowed like that of M.B.,B.S. First Pr9fessing Examination and be, made applicable w.e.f Annual Examination of 1993. A Copy of the Regulations is given at Annexure 'D'."

5. We are inclined to agree with the plea taken on behalf of the respondent-University that the new Regulations could not be applied to those, candidates who joined the B.Sc. Physiotherapy class prior to the approve of the said Regulations. Clearly, the petitioner was rightly allowed 5 chances as were permissible to him under the previous Regulations i.e. Regulations which were applicable to B.A./B.Sc. Examinations in so far as the number of chances allowed to an exempted candidate were concerned.

6. The Impugned order of the High Court is unexceptionable and calls for no interference.

7. Resultantly, the, petition is dismissed and leave refused. H.B.T./S-105/S Petition dismissed.