SCMR 2006

2006 PLP 1076 (SCMR)

Syed MUFEED SHAH and another: — Petitioners Versus PRINCIPAL, KHYBER MEDICAL COLLEGE, PESHAWAR and others-Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition No. 674 of 2003, decided on 11th February, 2004.
Honorable Judges
Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, C.J., Hamid Ali Mirza and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2006 PLP 1076 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, C.J., Hamid Ali Mirza and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
Parties Syed MUFEED SHAH and another: — Petitioners Versus PRINCIPAL, KHYBER MEDICAL COLLEGE, PESHAWAR and others-Respondents
Primary Law Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Ordinance (XXXII of 1962)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1076 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Ordinance (XXXII of 1962) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1076 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, C.J., Hamid Ali Mirza and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1076 (SCMR) (Syed MUFEED SHAH and another: — Petitioners Versus PRINCIPAL, KHYBER MEDICAL COLLEGE, PESHAWAR and others-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Ordinance (XXXII of 1962)

Representation

  • ----S. 33---North-West Frontier Province Medical Colleges, Prospectus, 1999-2000, condition No.16---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Educational institution---Substituting policy decision---Jurisdiction of Supreme Court---First Professional Examination of M.B.,B.S.---Failure to pass the examination in three chances---Candidates failed to pass the examination in three chances and their names were struck off the roll---Decision made by the authorities was maintained by High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction---Contention of the candidates was that they had not been given fourth chance to appear in M.B.,B.S. First Professional Examination---Validity---Candidates failed to point out any discriminatory treatment meted out to them qua other students of North-West Frontier Province which were similarly placed---North-West Frontier Province Government by a policy decision followed the Regulations made by the Council under S.33 of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962---Supreme Court could not substitute the policy decision taken by the North-West Frontier Province Government which was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable---Eligibility of the student under condition No.16 of North-West Frontier Province Medical Colleges, Prospectus, 1999-2000 for examination, was that any student who would fail to clear First Professional M.B.,B.S. Part II examination in three chances availed or un-availed would cease to become eligible for further medical education in Pakistan---Judgment' passed by High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction did not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by Supreme Court---Leave to appeal was refused.Ali Yousaf and another . Chairman of Academic Council and Principal, Dow Medical College; Karachi and others 2000 SCMR 1222, Ms. Fabiha Parvez v. Peoples Medical College for Girls; Nawabshah and others PLD 1999 Karachi 394 and Akhtar Ali Javed v. Principal Quaid-I-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur 1994 SCMR 532. rel.Miss Sakina Begum v. The Selection Committee for Bolan Medical College, Quetta 1995 SCMR 334; Chairman Selection Committee/Principal King Edward Medical College, Lahore and 2 others v. Wasif Zamir Ahmed and another 1997 SCMR 15; University of the Punjab and another v. Mst. Samea Zafar Cheema and 4 others 2001 SCMR 1506; Syed Mufeed Shah v. Principal Khyber Medical College, Peshawar and 4 others 2003 CLC 1348; Saleem Akbar and 4 others v. Principal and Chairman Joint Admission Committee, Khyber Medical College, Peshawar and 4 others 2002 CLC 338; Syed Khurram Rizvi v. The Principal Baqai Medical College, Karachi and 3 others 1999 CLC 1692 and Shahid Ali v. Karachi University through Vice-Chancellor and 3 others 1998 CLC 1449 ref.Barrister Masood Kausar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.Jehanzeb Rahim, A.-G., N.-W.F.P. for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 11th February, 2004.
  • (4). On the other hand, the learned Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. submitted that in the past four chances were allowed to such students when it was a five years course for the M.B.,B.S. However, the N.-W.F.P. Government changed its policy in the light of Regulations of the Council whereby the duration of the M.B.,B.S. course was reduced to four years. Therefore, first and the second half of the course of 1st professional examination of the M.B.,B.S. was required to be cleared by the students in three chances each. The learned Law Officer argued that . the question of discrimination did not arise in the present case as the policy of N.-W.F.P. in respect of all the students in all the colleges was uniform and consistent. The learned Law Officer placed reliance on the cases of University of the Punjab and another v. Mst. Samea Zafar Cheema and 4 others 2001 SCMR 1506; Ali Yousaf and another v. Chairman of Academic Council and Principal, Dow Medical College, Karachi and others 2000 SCMR 1222, Syed Mufeed Shah v. Principal Khyber Medical College, Peshawar and 4 others 2003 CLC 1348; Saleem Akbar and 4 others v. Principal and Chairman Joint Admission Committee, Khyber Medical College, Peshawar and 4 others 2002 CLC 338; Syed Khurram Rizvi v. The Principal Baqai Medical College, Karachi and 3 others 1999 'CLC 1692 and Shahid Ali v. Karachi University through Vice-Chancellor and 3 others 1998 CLC 1449.
  • (5). We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. at length. The learned counsel for the petitioners had failed to point out any discriminatory treatment meted out to the petitioners qua other students of the N.-W.F.P. which were similarly placed. The N.-W.F.P. Government by a policy decision followed the Regulations made by the Council under section 33 of the Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962. We are not called upon to substitute the policy decision taken by the N.-W.F.P. Government which was not shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable. The condition No.16 of the prospectus 1999-2000 for eligibility of the students for examination clearly provides that any student who fails to clear the Ist professional M.B.,B.S. Part-II examination in three chances availed or unavailed shall cease to become eligible for further medical education in Pakistan. A somewhat similar view was taken in the cases of Ali Yousaf (supra), Ms. Fabiha Parvez v. Peoples Medical College for Girls, Nawabshah and others PLD 1999 Karachi 394 and Akhtar Ali Javed v. Principal Quaid-I-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur 1994 SCMR 532. The plea of estoppel against law is not available to the petitioners. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment dated 27-3-2003 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, passed in Writ Petition No.308 of 2003).

Judgment & Decree

FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.

The petitioners seek leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan against judgment, dated 27-3-2003 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, in Writ , Petition No.308 of 2003. (2). The petitioners were admitted in Khyber Medical College,Peshawar, for the first professional M.B.B.S. course for the academic Session 1999-2000. They qualified first part of the first professional M.B.B.S. examination. They availed three chances for the second part and cleared all the subjects except Anatomy theory. Therefore, the names of the petitioners were struck off the roll. They were expelled from the college in the light of the Regulations of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (hereinafter referred to as the Council) and the prospectus of N.-W.F.P. Medical and Dental Colleges. The petitioners tiled Writ Petition No.308 of 2003 which was dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court, by the impugned judgment, dated 27-3-2003. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. (3). The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners had been discriminated against in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It was contended that in the Province of Punjab, four chances were allowed to students to qualify first professional examination of M.B.,B.S. course whereas the N.-W.F.P. Government had allowed only three chances to such students. The learned counsel relied on the case of Miss Sakina Begun v. The Selection Committee for Bolan Medical College, Quetta 1995 SCMR

334. The learned counsel submitted that the expulsion of the petitioners from college by the respondents was arbitrary. By accepting necessary fees and other dues from the petitioners, legal rights had accrued in their favour so as to entitle them to appear in the first professional, Part-II of the M.B.,B.S. supplementary examination 2003. Reliance was placed on the case of Chairman, Selection Committee/Principal King Edward Medical College, Lahore and 2 others v. Wasif Zamir Ahmed and another 1997 SCMR 15. (4). On the other hand, the learned Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. submitted that in the past four chances were allowed to such students when it was a five years course for the M.B.,B.S. However, the N.-W.F.P. Government changed its policy in the light of Regulations of the Council whereby the duration of the M.B.,B.S. course was reduced to four years. Therefore, first and the second half of the course of 1st professional examination of the M.B.,B.S. was required to be cleared by the students in three chances each. The learned Law Officer argued that . the question of discrimination did not arise in the present case as the policy of N.-W.F.P. in respect of all the students in all the colleges was uniform and consistent. The learned Law Officer placed reliance on the cases of University of the Punjab and another v. Mst. Samea Zafar Cheema and 4 others 2001 SCMR 1506; Ali Yousaf and another v. Chairman of Academic Council and Principal, Dow Medical College, Karachi and others 2000 SCMR 1222, Syed Mufeed Shah v. Principal Khyber Medical College, Peshawar and 4 others 2003 CLC 1348; Saleem Akbar and 4 others v. Principal and Chairman Joint Admission Committee, Khyber Medical College, Peshawar and 4 others 2002 CLC 338; Syed Khurram Rizvi v. The Principal Baqai Medical College, Karachi and 3 others 1999 'CLC 1692 and Shahid Ali v. Karachi University through Vice-Chancellor and 3 others 1998 CLC 1449. (5). We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. at length. The learned counsel for the petitioners had failed to point out any discriminatory treatment meted out to the petitioners qua other students of the N.-W.F.P. which were similarly placed. The N.-W.F.P. Government by a policy decision followed the Regulations made by the Council under section 33 of the Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962. We are not called upon to substitute the policy decision taken by the N.-W.F.P. Government which was not shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable. The condition No.16 of the prospectus 1999-2000 for eligibility of the students for examination clearly provides that any student who fails to clear the Ist professional M.B.,B.S. Part-II examination in three chances availed or unavailed shall cease to become eligible for further medical education in Pakistan. A somewhat similar view was taken in the cases of Ali Yousaf (supra), Ms. Fabiha Parvez v. Peoples Medical College for Girls, Nawabshah and others PLD 1999 Karachi 394 and Akhtar Ali Javed v. Principal Quaid-I-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur 1994 SCMR

532. The plea of estoppel against law is not available to the petitioners. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court. (6). For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. M.H./M/79/SC?????? ???? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Petition dismissed.