2008 PLP 1449 (CLC)

The petitioner, admittedly, availed four chances but failed to pass Part-II M.B.,B.S. Examination (First Professional). Vide order dated 3-4-2008 (Annexure "C") his name has been struck off from College roll.

2. Learned counsel contends that the said order infringes upon the right of the petitioner to acquire education and the Regulation on which it is based is also ultra vires of Constitution. According to him, the petitioner could not pass the examination as he remained ill.

3. We have gone through this file. The relevant regulation, framed by the respondent No.2-University in accordance with the Rules framed by respondent No.4-Council provides that a candidate who fails to clear the First Professional Part-II M.B.,B.S. Examination in four consecutive chances, availed or unavailed, offered by the University, shall cease to be eligible for further medical/dental education in Pakistan.

4. The said first contention of the learned counsel is without any force as right to seek admission in an education institution and to continue studies therein is always subject to the Rules of discipline framed by the institution, and as such, a student who intends to pursue his studies in the institution is bound by such Rules. Rule of passing first Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination in four attempts did not infringe upon right of a student to pursue his studies in Medical College. On the contrary, it ensures arrest of falling standards of education in the institutions and it was not arbitrary and unreasonable. Reference be made to the case of Ali Yousaf and another v. Chairman of Academic Council and Principal, Dow Medical College, Karachi and others 2000 SCMR 1222 and Akhtar Ali Javed v. Principal Quaid-i-Azam Medical College. Bahawalpur 1994 SCMR 532.

5. So far as the said second contention is concerned, the writ petition narrates that the petitioner appeared in the various examinations and availed the following chances to pass the said examination: (i) Annual Examination, 2006. (ii) Supplementary Examination, 2006. (iii) Annual Examination, 2007. (iv) Supplementary Examination, 2007. There is not even a word in the writ petition that the petitioner ever informed the University about the alleged ailment he was suffering from. On the other hand, according to para.6, he approached the University after having availed all the four chances.

6. The petitioner has not mentioned the dates of the said examinations. He has appended two prescriptions dated 15-2-2007 and 20-3-2007 by one. Dr. Shaukat Ali Zahid stated to be a Specialist in Mental Psychology and Intoxicants Diseases. The petitioner has appended only three detailed marks certificates. According to which the examinations were held in December, 2006, November, 2007 and February, 2008. Nothing therefore, turns on the said contention. We may note here that this plea was also dealt with by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the said case of Ali Yousaf and another and was rejected notwithstanding the fact that during the pendency of the writ petition, the student, in fact, appeared and had taken an additional chance and passed the examination.

7. Learned counsel then contends that since the petitioner stands admitted on self-finance basis, he can avail as many chances since he is paying from his pocket. We are afraid the contention is rather frivolous as the said Rule/Regulation is applicable to all manners of students. The writ petition accordingly is dismissed in limine. M.B.A./A-71/L Petition dismissed.