MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J. The petitioner was admitted in the Allama Iqbal Medical College in the First Year M.B.,B.S.- She appeared in the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Part-I Examination 2003 but failed. She re-appeared in the Supplementary Examination held in 2004 and qualified the examination. She took the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Part-II Annual Examination 2004 but remained unsuccessful. She again appeared in the Supplementary Examination held in April, 2005 and Annual Examination held in December, 2005 but could not quality. She thus exhausted all the three chances permissible under the rules.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Is split into two parts. Part-I and Part-II put together are to be considered as one class. The petitioner can avail the one chance not used by her in the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Part-I, as she had qualified the same in two chances. He further urged that the prescribed forty days time between the two exams was not provided to the petitioner as such the could not properly prepare for the supplementary examination held in April, 2005. Learned counsel also relied upon an order dated 16.3.2006 passed on Writ Petition No. 688/20006 , by a learned Judge in Chamber, Multan Bench of this Court by which the student was allowed to participate in the ensuing examination. Reliance was also placed on Alaptagin v. Principal, Sajdu Sharif Medical College, Swat and 3 others (PLD 2004 Peshawar 307) and the judgment dated 13.9.2004 passed. By the Hon'ble Supreme Court on C.P.L.A. No. 1992/2004.
Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent University submitted that Part-I and Part-II of the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Are independent parts. As per University regulations three chances are provided for passing each part. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 24.10.2005 passed on C.Ps. Nos. 1448, 1459 and 1460-L/2005 and order dated 26.1.2006 passed on C.P. No. 45/2006.
3. We have gone, through the relevant Statutes and Regulations the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties and considered their arguments. The relevant Regulations of the University of Health Sciences are as follows:- 4,3. A candidate who fails to pass First Professional Part-I examination in three consecutive chances, availed or unavailed, after becoming eligible for First Professional Part-I examination shall cease to become eligible for further medical education."
A candidate who fails to pass First Professional Part-II examination in three consecutive chances, availed or unavailed, after becoming eligible for First Professional Part-II examination shall cease to become eligible for further medical education."
The P.M.D.C. Regulations on the subject is as follows:- "PMDC Regulation Any student who fails to pass the first professional M.B.,B.S. Part-I and Part-II examination in three chances or does not avail the chances despite being eligible for each examination shall cease to pursue further medical education in Pakistan."
The bare reading of the aforementioned regulations reveals that the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Comprises of two independent parts i.e. Part-I and Part-II and for each Part three consecutive chances, availed or unavailed, have been provided for qualifying the same. The three chances are part specific and by no stretch of imagination can be carried forward. The language of the said regulations is unambiguous and leaves no doubt in out mind that the left over chances of the First Part cannot be carried over to thePart-II. The desired interpretation of the regulations cannot be achieved without doing violence to the language of the said regulations. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Umar Wahid, etc. v. University of Health Sciences etc. C.P. No. 45/2006' observed that the judgment of the Peshawar High Court "turned on the interpretation and the relevant provision in the prospectus and cannot be cited as laying down a general principal."
As fat as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not provided enough time for preparation of Supplementary examination held in April, 2005 suffice to say that the petitioner voluntarily appeared in the said exam. And never agitated the matter before the competent authority. The petitioner opted to avail the earliest opportunity for clearing the examination. She cannot be allowed to have a volte face at this' stage and say that she was not provided sufficient time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadua Flrdous v.
Government of Punjab etc., C.Ps. Nos. 1448, 1459 and 1460-L/2005 observed as under:--- "It may be noted that the petitioners voluntarily appeared in the examination whenever the same was scheduled and there is nothing on the record to show that they ever agitated not to take the examination for the reasons, including on premises on which case is, being argued."
We are of the view that the right of the petitioner to seek education is subject to Statutes/Regulations framed by the University to regulate the studies. If a student fails to clear the examination in the prescribed chances, he ceases to become eligible for further medical education.
4. For what has been stated above we do not find any substance in this petition and dismiss the same. 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.