' FARRUKH LATIF, J.---Vide notice dated 26-1-2002 (annexure 'A') respondent No,1, Principal Nishtar Medical College, Multan expelled the petitioner from the college in compliance of the rules of B.Z.
University, PMDC and Punjab Government rules given in the college prospectus, because she could not pass First Professional M.B.B.S. Examination in four chances (available or unavailed) after becoming eligible to appear in the First Professional Examination. The petitioner filed a representation against the aforesaid notice before respondent No,1 requesting that she be allowed another chance to appear in the First Professional MBBS Examination but the same was turned down by the Principal (Executive Officer), Nishtar Medical College, Multan on 19-4-2002 annexure 'H'.
2. In this constitutional petition Mst. Nadia Iram has called in question the aforesaid notice annexure A and order annexure H as illegal, void and without jurisdiction. Prayer in the writ petition is that the aforesaid notice and letter annexures A & H respectively be declared illegal and set aside and the respondents be directed to provide another chance to the petitioner in the next coming First Professional MBBS Examination.
3. Grounds for declaring the aforesaid notice and order as illegal which are mentioned in the writ petition and urged before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner are:--
(i) Though the petitioner had availed all the four chances and failed but at the time of holding every examination the petitioner severely ailing and was not in a position to sit in the examination with full preparation;
(ii) That the impugned notice and letter declining her representation are harsh;
(iii) Facts and circumstances of the case warranted that rules and regulations should have been relaxed in favour of the petitioner; and
(iv) In similar cases another chance was granted by the Hon'ble High Court to many writ petitioners vide annexs. C to C/13 hence following the rule of consistency the petitioner also deserved the said concession.
4. Writ petition is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for respondent No,
1. Arguments heard.
Writ petition and its annexures have also been perused. It is admitted fact that according to the rules of B.Z. University, Multan, PMDC and the rules given in the prospectus of the Medical College it is provided that those students who fail to clear First Professional MBBS Examination in four chances (availed or unavailed), shall cease to be eligible for further medical education and shall be expelled from the college.
5. A perusal of the citations referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner annexures C to C/13, shows that petitioners were allowed to avail one more chance. In some cases, their plea of illness was accepted on the ground that in such a case where a student is unable to avail the chance on account of circumstances beyond his control, the examination in which he could not appear shall not deemed to have been availed by him, therefore, he was entitled to the grant of another chance.
6. In the latest ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of University of the Punjab and another v. Mst. Samea Zafar Cheerna and 4 others (2001 SCM R 1506), it is held that scope of phrase "availed or unavailed" was enlarged by the High Court on totally unjustified ground. If deliberately a chance is not availed then the student cannot take advantage of his own unbecoming act of omission or commission to nullify the fact of said rule. If it is due to reasons beyond his control, in such circumstances, it would fall within the ambit of the term "unavailed".
Both the words "availed or unavailed" have been used in the said rule. If the meaning and purpose of the rule is clear, an artificial and unnatural meaning cannot be attributed to enhance or to modify the scope of the rule. No word or clause of a rule shall be treated as superfluous nor beneficial construction can be resorted if words are quite clear. In fact the clear words are decisive by themselves. There is a logic behind the said phrase. On the one hand it tends to enhance the status/standard of education and on the other provides a tengible guildline to effectively examine the aptitude of the students. Four chances are more than enough to clear First Professional M.B.B.S. Examination, yet if a student fails to do so, the reasonable conclusion would be that he has no aptitude for medical education. The august Supreme Court was of the view that scope of the phrase "four chances availed or unavailed" is now absolutely clear and no other interpretation is possible than stated above and that the learned High Court erred in interpreting the above phrase otherwise.
7. In the light of the aforesaid authority, no further chance could be given to the petitioner after she had failed to clear the said examination in four chances.
8. The impugned notice as well as the impugned letter were issued strictly in accordance with rules and regulations and cannot be deemed as illegal on the basis of grounds mentioned in the writ petition and reiterated before me by the learned counsel for petitioner. Writ petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.