2006 PLP 695 (SCMR)

TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.

Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 27-9-2002 whereby Constitutional Petition bearing W.P. No.5220 of 2002 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court and his expulsion order from the Nishtar Medical College, Multan issued by respondent No.1 on 26-1-2002 was maintained.

2. Facts briefly are that the petitioner, a Sodani National, took admission in the 1st year M.B.B.S. Class at Nishtar Medical College, Multan under Pakistan Technical Assistance Programme during the Sessions 1997-1998. The petitioner could not pass his First Professional Examination in four attempts provided under the Rules. The respondents in the circumstances were constrained to issue expulsion order on 26-1,2002 which was challenged through the Constitutional petition before the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court after assessing the pleas taken by the petitioner dismissed the Constitutional petition and confirmed the expulsion older through the judgment, dated 27-9-2002. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner could not get through in his fourth attempt as he took examination while he was undergoing a serious ailment. This argument on the face of it is without force. The petitioner had availed four chances provided to him under the Rule but could not get through. This rule is certainly essential and has rightly been framed by the authorities so as to improve the excellence of medical education. In an identical case reported as 2001 SCMR 1506 titled as University of the Punjab and another v. Mst. Saima Zaffar Cheema and 4 others this Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby another chance (fifth) was accorded by the learned Single Judge. It would be appropriate to reproduce the observation made by this Court in the said judgment which are in the following terms:

"Perusal of the operative part of the impugned judgment indicates that the scope of phrase "availed or unavailed" was enlarged on totally unjustified ground. If deliberately a chance is not availed, then the student cannot take advantage of his/her own unbecoming act of omission or commission to nullify the effect of said rule. If it is due to reasons beyond his control, in such circumstances, it would fall within the ambit of term "Unavailed". Both words "availed or unavailed" have been used, in said rule. If the meaning and purpose of the rule is clear an artificial or unnatural meaning cannot be attributed to enhance or to modify the scope of the rule. No word or clause of a rule shall be treated as superfluous, nor beneficial construction can be resorted if the words are quite clear. In fat.' the clear words are decisive by themselves. There is a :-bit; behind said phrase. On the one hand it tends to enhance the status/standard of education and on the other provides a tangible guideline to effectively examine the aptitude of the students. Four chances are more than enough to clear First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination, yet, if a student fails to do so, the reasonable conclusion would be that he has no aptitude for medical education." Reliance is also placed on Ali Yousaf and another v. Chairman of Academic Council and Principle Medical College and others 2000 SCMR 1222, Akhtar All Javed v. Principal, Quaid-i-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur 1994 SCIvIR 532, Rana Saced Ahmad v. The Controller of Examination, Bahauddin Zakriya University, Multan 1996 SCMR 792 and Khan Bahadur v. Principal, Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad and four others 1996 SCMR 1102.

5. In this View of the matter, we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is therefore dismissed. ?Leave is refused. M.H./O-3/SC????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.