1998 PLP 544 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, J.‑‑‑The petitioner‑College seeks leave to appeal against the interim order dated 8‑10‑1995 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Intro‑Court Appeal No.439 of 1994, directing the petitioner‑College to allow the respondent to sit in the ensuing Examination of F.C.P.S. Part‑11.

2. The brief facts forming the background of this controversy are that the respondent passed M.B.,B.S. Examination in the year 1981 from the King Edward Medical College, Lahore. Thereafter, he went abroad and passed M.R.C.P. Part‑I Examination from U.K. held on 30‑6‑1992 wherein he was declared successful on 10‑7‑1992. The respondent came to Pakistan and submitted an application to the petitioner‑College for exemption from appearance in F.C.P.S. Part‑I Examination in pursuance of the Prospectus published in July, 1991 by the petitioner‑College. The respondent was however, informed that his application for exemption from F.C.P.S. Part‑I Examination shall be put up before the Reference Committee of the College which was expected to meet shortly. In the meantime, the respondent was selected for Post Graduate Training in Clinical Paediatrics by Edinburough Paediatrics Training Scheme and then Royal College of Physicians in London under the Overseas Doctors Training Scheme and he left Pakistan on 22‑12‑1992 on study leave from the Government of Punjab. On return to Pakistan, the respondent found a letter from the petitioner‑College informing him that in its recent meeting the petitioner‑College had decided that exemption from F.C.P.S. Part‑I will not be granted on the passing of F.R.C.S. Part‑I/MRC Part‑I from U.K. The respondent, therefore, invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court and filed Constitutional Petition No.16424/1993 to have‑the impugned order of the petitioner‑College declared mala fide, contrary to rules and regulations, against law and equity, a nullity in the eye of law and of no legal effect qua the rights of the respondent. A further direction was sought to be issued to the petitioner‑College to exempt the respondent from F.C.P.S. Part‑I Examination with permission to appear in the ensuring F.C.P.S. (Paediatrics) Part‑11 as a regular student. This writ petition was allowed and the impugned order refusing to extend exemption sought for by the respondent was set aside and, in consequence, the respondent was allowed exemption from F.C.P.S. Part‑I Examination.

3. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid order passed on the writ petition, the petitioner‑College filed Intra‑Court Appeal in the Lahore High Court. This appeal was fixed for hearing on 8‑10‑1995 but was adjourned to 10‑10‑1995. As the learned counsel for the petitioner‑College was away to Islamabad in connection with his professional engagements, the appeal came up for hearing on 10‑10‑1995 before a Division Bench wherein the arguments of the counsel were heard and the judgment was reserved. On 8‑10‑1995 the petitioner‑College moved an application before the learned Division Bench for adjournment to enable its counsel to assist the Court in the disposal of the application for grant of provisional admission to the respondent for appearance in the F.C.P.S. Part‑II Examination. The grievance of the petitioner‑College was that the learned Division Bench without affording opportunity to the counsel for the petitioner -College had granted the interim relief to the respondent, in that, not withstanding the exemption granted by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the writ petition, he was still not qualified to sit in the ensuing Examination inasmuch as the respondent was not possessed of other eligibility requirements. This application is unfortunately undated but finds mention in the order dated 8‑11‑1995 at pages 53 and 54 of the paper bock. The judgment reserved in the Intra‑Court Appeal was, therefore, not announced and it was adjourned to 19‑11‑1995. Again at the request of Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner‑College before us, the judgment in the Intra Court Appeal was again adjourned to 26‑1 1‑1995.

4. In seeking leave to appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioner- College has questioned the propriety of the order of the learned High Court in allowing the respondent, by way of interim relief, to appear in the ensuing F.C.P.S. Part‑II Examination on the ground that he was not heard in the matter. The petitioner‑College may, if so advised, approach the learned Division Bench of the High Court and press into service the contention that has been raised before us. Otherwise, the grant or refusal of an interim order was within the discretion of the High Court subject to final determination as and when the Intra‑Court Appeal is disposed of.

5. With. these observations, we do not find any merit in this petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. A.A./C‑170/S Leave refused.