' The instant petition prayed for a direction to the respondents to compute the petitioner's marks obtained by her in internal assessme nt towards her practical part of the subject of Surgery, instead of computing the same according to the specific weightage 75% of marks of clinical part.
2. Precisely, the relevant facts are that the petitioner after doing her F.Sc. (Pre-Medical) was admitted in Allama Iqbal Medical College, Lahore in Bachelor of Medicines and Bachelor of Surgery (M.B.,B.S.) in the year, 2000, on the basis of her clearance of entry test. The petitioner with her brilliant educational career as a student of F.Sc. And as student of M.B.,B.S. Appeared in final professional M.B.,B.S. Examination, 2005 but was declared "Failed". On her inquiry, it revealed to her that A she could not get 50% marks in clinical part. She with the explanation of total marks of 500 of the subject of Surgery, bifurcated into two heads of theory with 250 marks (written part of exam) and clinical and practical 250 marks (oral/viva portion) claimed that theory had two papers A & B with total marks 225 and viva with two parts, clinical 170 and practical of 55 marks, the remaining marks were left for internal assessm ent, filed the instant petition with the relief noted above.
3. On Court's requisition, the respondents beside submitting parawise comments, appeared through Legal Advisor and refuted the claim of the petitioner.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record appended herewith. Undisputedly, the petitioner was declared un-successful in the final professional examination, 2005 as she could get 78 marks out of 170 whereas the pass marks were 85 and accordingly failed by a margin of 7 marks. The requirement of getting 50% in aggregate, 50% in theory, 50% in practical and 50% in clinical components of a subject separately was provided by Regulation No,2 of the University of Health Sciences, which for the facility, is reproduced as below:-- "(2) The minimum number of marks required to pass this examination for each subject shall be fifty percent (50%) of the aggregate in the oral and practical/clinical and fifty percent (50%) in the clinical examination separately at one and the same time: ' Provided that a candidate shall be deemed to have passed if he/she fails in only one subject (written, oral and practical, and clinical) by a margin of 5 Marks, when he/she 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 subject in which he/she had not passed provided further that he/she will be granted this concession only once in this examination (annual or supplementary). The number of marks by which he/she is short shall not, however, be physically added. A candidate failing in more than one subject shall not be entitled to any grace marks."
5. The above reproduced Regulation clearly demonstrated that the clinical components were to be passed separately by scoring 50% marks and no internal assessment was to be added to the clinical score.Thus we were not persuaded to accept the explanation rendered by the petitioner, specially in view of the decision of the Syndicate, dated 13-12-2004 which is to the following effect:- - "The Syndicate approved the following Rules for Internal Assessment Marks:--
(1) 10% internal Assessm ent Marks, will be added to both the scores of theory and practical/viva examination in each Professional M.B.B.S. Examination.
(2) The distribution of Internal Assessment Marks in recommended as under:--
(i) 50% in Theory
(ii) 50% in Practical/Viva Voce."
6. We have no ambiguity to hold that the final examination of M.B.B.S. Has clinical part separate from theory and it has its own marks as the students have to come in practical life to deal with lives of public at large. Keeping in view the important aspect of clinical side of the examination for entering into practical life, students do not deserve any kind of adjustment from the other parts of the examination, even though a candidate had scored much more marks, therein. We respectfully following the mandate by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Ilyas v. Baha-ud- Din Zakariya University, Multan (2005 SCM R 961) feel ourselves unable to accept the interpretation given by the petitioner to the Rules/Regulations framed by the University Authorities, as against the one adopted/accepted by the respondents. In the precedent case, independent requirement of getting marks in each semester for the purposes of promotion was not deviated. Thus on the basis of ratio of this judgment, we decline to accept the explanation contrary to the express language of above referred/reproducedRegulation/decision. Similarly, petitioner failed in examination of Surgery with a margin of 7 marks, she cannot be awarded 5 grace marks under the proviso to Regulation No,2, above referred, as per our own judgment in the case of Khurram Nazir v. University of Health Sciences etc. (2005 M LD 1130).
7. For the reasons noted above, no case for interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court could be made. Even otherwise, lawful decision of respondents within the ambit of conferred jurisdiction cannot be substituted on this petition, which being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with nor order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.