The petitioners are students of final/BDS, fourth and first-year (Part-II) MBBS classes respectively in the Lahore Medical and Dental College, Lahore. They appeared in their respective professional Annual Examination, 2003 i.e. Final, third and first professional examination (Part II) held by the respondent/University of Health Sciences but remained unsuccessful. They opted to appear in supplementary examination 2003 held in April, 2004. They again failed. They filed Constitutional Petitions i.e. W.P. No.10114/2004 and W.P. No.10120/2004 for grant of five grace marks in the Annual Examination which were disposed of with a direction to the University of Health Sciences to treat the petitions as their representations. The respondent/University vide letter dated July 20, 2004 has declined to award five grace marks mainly on the ground that the petitioner failed in the Annual Examination, 2003 and opted to appear in the supplementary examination 2003. The relevant portion of the letter relatable to the petitioners is reproduced as under:- (Petitioner No.1)
"You accepted the result of Final Prof. BDS Annual Examination and opted to appear in Supplementary Examination 2003.
(Petitioner No.2)
"You accepted the result of 3rd Prof. MBBS Annual Examination and opted to appear Supplementary Examination 2003.
(Petitioner No.3)
"Your accepted the result of 1st Prof. MBBS Part II Annual Examination and opted to appear in Supplementary Examination 2003.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as per para 4 of the Statutes and Regulations relating to MBBS/BDS Examination of the University of Punjab the petitioners are entitled to five grace marks and after award of I the same they are deemed to have passed the annual examination. The said rules are applicable to the students who are enrolled in Lahore Medical and Dental College which affiliated with the respondent/University of Health Sciences. Learned counsel urged that petitioners were not aware of the rules sought as such they cannot be penalized.
Learned counsel for the respondent/University submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to any grace marks as they had reappeared in the supplementary examination 2003 and cannot be allowed to turn round the claim five grace marks in the annual examination 2003 in which they had failed. The result of 2500 students who appeared in Annual Examination 2003 will have to be reconsidered which is not possible at this stage.
3. We have gone through the impugned letters, perused the record and given out anxious consideration to the pleas raised by the learned counsel for the parties_ Para 4 of the Statutes and Regulations relating to the MBBS examination (Calendar of University of the Punjab Vol.11 Part X) is reproduced:- Provided that a candidate shall be deemed to have passed if he (a) fails in one subject (Theory, Oral and Practical, clinical and aggregate) by a margin of 5 marks (b) fails in more than one subject by a margin which can be made up by distribution of five marks over the subject/papers in which he fails, when he takes the examination either in all the subjects at one time or having appeared and failed in a part of the examination reappears in the subjects in which he had not passed. Provided further that he will be granted this concession only once in this examination. "
(underlining is ours)
Para 4 of the Statutes and regulations relating to BDS examination (afore-referred Vol-II) is as under:- "4. Provided that a candidate shall be declared to have passed if he (a) fails in one subject (theory, oral, practical and aggregate) by a margin of (physical addition of five marks), (b) fails in more than one subject by a margin which can be made up by distribution of five marks over the subject/papers in which he fails; when he takes the examination either in all the subjects at one time or having appeared and failed in a part of the examination, re0appears in the subjects in which he has not passed, Provided further that he will be granted this concession only once in this examination." (underlining is ours)
The only difference between the aforemen1tioned two paras is that as far as MBBS candidates as concerned they "shall be deemed to have passed" and the BDS candidates, "a candidate shall be declared to have passed". The bare reading of aforementioned Regulations reveals that when a Candidate takes the examination either in all the subjects at one time or having appeared and failed in a part of the examination, re-appears in the subjects in which he has not passed, he will be entitled to five grace marks provided that he will be granted the concession only once in this examination. The expression "this examination", in our view, pertains to the last examination taken by the candidates and not to the previous examination. The petitioners have reappeared in the subjects in which they had not passed and can claim five grace marks in the supplementary examination only and not the earlier Annual Examination. The right is available to the students regarding the last examination taken by them and not the earlier examination. Admittedly the petitioners appeared in their professional annual examinations but could not pass. They did not claim the alleged grace marks from the respondent/University nor filed any constitutional petition in this respect. They opted to appear in the supplementary examination 2003 but again remained unsuccessful. They cannot be allowed to have volte face alleging through their result of the supplementary examination 2003 be ignored and they be awarded five grace marks in the earlier annual examination. Ignorance of law is not excuse. If the plea of the petitioners is accepted the entire supplementary examination 2003 is to be scrapped and the results of all previous examinations will be open to reconsideration. This cannot be the intention of legislature. The annual Examination 2003 is a past and close transaction and cannot be reopened by any stretch of imagination. According to the learned counsel for the respondent the result of about 2500 students who appeared in the annual Examination 2003 will have to be reopened. The petitioners are also estopped by their conduct to challenge the result of the earlier examination.
4. For what has been stated above this petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Petitioner dismissed.