2011 CLC 195 (PLP)

Through this review petition, the order dated 12-11-2009 passed in Writ Petition No.22137 of 2009 is sought to be reviewed, inter alia, on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the petitioner did not claim the relief of award of average marks in questions Nos. 1 and 2 of the paper of Surgery (Theory), which were out of syllabus on the basis of the average marks obtained by him, in. other papers of the Final Professional Examination of B.Sc. Physiotherapy. The petitioner had in fact sought the relief that he be awarded average marks in questions Nos. 1 and 2 of the paper Surgery (Theory) of the Final Professional Examination B.Sc. Physiotherapy on the basis of the average marks obtained by him in the other questions of the same paper i.e., questions Nos. 3, 4 and 5.

2. The record has been perused with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and having heard his arguments we find that even if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, the petitioner 15 is not likely to succeed on merits inasmuch as from the record it is apparent that six candidates took the examination in question i.e., the paper of Surgery (Theory) Final Professional Examination of B.Sc. Physiotherapy. Out of the said six candidates four candidates have passed this paper/examination whereas the remaining two candidates, including the petitioner, did not pass the said examination. The other failing candidate has not challenged his result. It is only the petitioner who has come forward with the grievance that the paper was out of the syllabus.

3. The stand of the petitioner has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents who has taken us through the details of the syllabus of the paper in question and from a perusal of the same it is evident that the paper was set in terms of the syllabus provided to the candidates. The learned counsel has provided us with the complete details of the relevant questions and reference books /material from which the paper was set, as such, we do not find that the grievance of the petitioner is well founded or genuine.

4. It may be , pertinent to point out here that the petitioner has chosen a profession in which he would be practising as a Physiotherapist and for a layman he would be deemed to be a doctor although not a doctor practising the profession of medicine, yet a doctor in the field of Physiotherapy. In such like circumstances a Physiotherapist is required to have detailed knowledge of the subjects prescribed in the syllabus. A candidate appearing for professional exams cannot pick and choose random topics as in the practical field he is required to have a thorough knowledge of his subject. The B.Sc., Physiotherapy exam is not an exam at a primary or secondary level where a candidate may do selective preparation and pass the Exams.

5. Even otherwise, as held by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Ilyas v. Bahauddin Zakariva University, Multan and another (2005 SCMR 961) that rules and regulations framed by the University Authorities for the purpose of conducting/regularizing its examinations etc. are required to be interpreted by the University Authorities itself and Courts should avoid to interpret the same unless a case of grave injustice is made out, otherwise it would be difficult for the University administration to run its internal affairs relating to examinations etc. We, therefore, find no force in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed. M.H./A-238/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.