2000 PLP 1097 (CLC)

(c) grant any other relief or reliefs which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; (d) grant cost of thus suit."

4. The brief facts as alleged in Constitutional Petition No.D‑57 of 1999 are that petitioner was student of Sindh Medical College, Karachi. He appeared in First Professional M.B.B.S.‑Annual Examination of 1997 but could not clear all the subjects. He then appeared in the Supplementary Examination of 1997, but again failed. He appeared in the Annual Examination of 1998 but once again could not clear. At the time of 1998 Supplementary Examination, the petitioner was severely sick but against doctor's advice appeared in the examination and except for the subject of physiology he cleared all the subjects. Later the respondent No.1 issued final show‑cause notice to the petitioner for the cancellation of his admission and being aggrieved by the action, the petitioner has filed the present petition wherein he has sought the following reliefs:‑‑ "(a) Declare that the show‑cause notice, dated 29‑12‑1998, issued by the respondent No. 1, is illegal, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect; (b) direct the respondent No1l to allow a chance to petitioner to appear in forthcoming 1st Professional M. B., B. S. Examination of 1999; (c) grant any other relief in the circumstances; (d) cost of this petition may be awarded to the petitioner. "

5. The respondents have filed comments in C.P. No.D‑1973 of 1998 and have orally adopted the same in C.P. No.D‑1881 of 1998 and C.P. No.D‑57 of 1999. It is averred that respondent Pakistan Medical and Dental Council has framed rules for the students of M.B.B.S. and these rules were incorporated in the prospectus issued at the time of admission whereby any student who failed to clear First Professional M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Examination in four‑chances availed or unavailed shall not be eligible for further medic education in Pakistan. Since the petitioners in all petitions availed of four chances but could not clear the examination as such they are not entitled to any further chance to appear in Medical and Dental Examinations. The Medical Certificates issued by the 'private doctors are managed and manoeuvred. 6 .We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

7. There is no cavil about the fact that all the petitioners were provided four chances and they availed the same but they failed to clear all the subjects. In view of Regulation 4(ii) framed by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council the petitioners are debarred from appearing in the ensuing examination. 8. 'It will be pertinent to reproduce the Regulation 4(ii) here in below for the sake of convenience:‑‑ (4) ...... ............... (i) ............................................................................... (ii) Any student who fails to clear First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination in four chances availed or unavailed shall cease to be eligible for further medical/dental education in Pakistan. "

9. The abovesaid regulation is incorporated in the prospectus issued to the petitioners. The plain reading of the Regulation 4(ii) shows that the petitioners are not entitled to fifth chance. Here the petitioners in support of their alleged illness have also placed reliance on the medical certificates. It is, however, a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately, such certificates can be easily manoeuvred/managed by anyone without really being sick and, therefore, not much credence can be given to those. The above regulation provides four chances, availed or unavailed, to clear the first professional M.B.,B.S. examination and we do not see why full effect should not normally be given to it.

10. In the case of Shahid Ali v. Karachi University 1998 CLC 1449 it was observed by a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us namely Muhammad Roshan Essani, J., was a member, as under:‑‑ "Emphasis as regards purported unreasonableness and alleged artificial classification, irreconcilable with rationality or justice, has been laid largely on pleas that such a disqualification as is postulated in the‑ applicable clause of the regulation is peculiar to the first profesional examination and no similar check is envisaged for subsequent years of the study. We have been fully convinced that no violation of Fundamental Rights including unequal treatment or discrimination is involved in the application of the rule. On the contrary, the provision is designed to check and safeguard at the earliest all such entrants in Medical Institutions as do not have the aptitude or the competence to continue the course of study to its conclusion. The first such hurdle is provided at the admission stage itself when students are required to be possessed of a minimum percentage of marks‑ to secure entry and there as well an open competition on merit is to take place, the last successful candidate often averaging much higher than the minimum qualifying requirement. The second check occurs at the level of the First Professional M.B., B.S. Examination which takes place after two years of internment. There, as well, no less than four attempts are provided and what is more such attempts, in relation to a failed . student, do not involve appearance in all the subjects or papers but merely in those in which the student has failed to make the grades. Normally, if the affectee does not clear even after such a number of attempts, in spite of being one of the better qualified from amongst those who were initially seeking admittance, there must be something wrong somewhere and seriously at that. In our opinion, once the first professional examination is cleared, there remains no further need for any additional constraint and no inequality occurs on account of non‑making of such a provision. Neither, therefore, on grounds of reasonableness nor of discrimination or unequal treatment the rule in question can be found to offend. It does not violate any of the Fundamental Rights or other Constitutional provision and more particularly Articles 2A, 4, 8 and 25 on which some emphasis was .laid by Mr. Shamsuddin Khalid Ahmed, the petitioners' learned counsel. As to competence section 33(2)(c) of the Ordinance is the answer. "

11. In the case of Munaza Habib and others v. The Vice‑Chancellor and others 1996 SCMR 1790, Honourable Supreme Court has laid down the following dicta:‑‑ "It is true, as not controverted by learned counsel for petitioners that at the time of petitioners' admission in the M.B.,B.S. Class the College Prospectus did contain an instruction for the information of the students that they were required to qualify First M.B.,B.S. Professional Examination in four chances, failing which they would cease to be eligible to pursue their studies in Medical/Dental Education in Pakistan. The petitioners were offered four chances to qualify the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination and having remained unsuccessful, cannot legally compel the University Authorities to provide them further chance."

12. In the case of Akhtar Ali J1ved v. Principal, Quaid‑i‑Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur 1994 SCMR 532, Honourable Supreme Court has observed as under:‑‑ .... In the present case, the appellant has already been allowed five chances out of which he did not avail one, while the last chance was availed by the appellant under the orders of this Court. In spite of four attempts he failed to qualify the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination and as such he is not entitled to ask for a further chance to pass the examination. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly is missed. There will be no order as to costs."

13. In the case of Van Abdullah and another v. Government of Sindh and 3 others 1997 MLD 2581, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioners had already availed of four chances to pass 1st Professional M.B.,B.S. and their names were rightly removed from the roll of the College in accordance with the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Rules, with which the petitioners were bound.

14. The authority in the case of Asim Siddiqui v. Principal. Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad and another PLD 1992 Pesh. 52 cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of no avail to them as the facts and circumstances of the cited case are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.

15. The upshot of the above discussion is that all the three petitions are dismissed. .

16. By short order, dated 22‑1‑1999, we had dismissed these petitions and above are the reasons for the said short order. H. B. T./K‑5/K Petitions dismissed.