' This order will dispose of Writ Petition Nos. 5540 and 7549 of 2006 as question of law and facts are common.
2. The petitioners in these constitutional petitions are students of King Edward Medical College in 4th year M.B.,B.S. Class (3rd professional). According to prospectus the petitioners were to appear in their 3rd professional examination in two subjects only, namely Pathology and Community Medicines. A meeting of the Curriculum Committee of respondent No,4 was convened on 4th and 5th of December, 2004 wherein it was recommended that the subjects of ENT and Eye will be taught and examination thereof will be held in the 3rd professional examination. Respondent No,2 in response to the minutes of Curriculum Committee meeting (103rd Session) issued Notification No,5485/KEMU/2006, dated 26-4-2006 revising therein the schedule of 4th year M.B.,B.S. Class (Session 2005-2006); onward, resultantly classes for the subjects of ENT and Eye were commenced in 4th year, so as to enable the students of the session to impart education in these subjects and appear in forthcoming examination scheduled for 4th of October, 2006. The petitioners being aggrieved of the decision of the respondents approached the concerned quarters but their grievance was not redressed, giving rise to these petitions.
3. Malik Muhammad Rafique Rajwana, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No,7549 of 2006 has argued that the petitioners were admitted to M.B.,B.S. Class and syllabus for five years was conveyed through prospectus. The contents of the prospectus create obligation upon the students as well as the University to abide by the programme of studies, as narrated therein. No departure from contents of prospectus is legally permissible especially when amendment or alteration, affecting the rights, is retrospective in nature. It was than contended that the original course in the subjects of ENT and Eye comprises of two years period but through the impugned change, it has been restricted to one year. Learned counsel has emphasized about the procedural flaws in effecting the impugned change in the syllabus and contended that according to Rule 8 of PMDC Ordinance, the quorum required is of 9 members, while 6 members attended the meeting of Board of Studies. The decision of the Committee, not properly convened has no binding effect. Statutes and regulations to the M.B.,B.S. Third professional (Reorganized Scheme)
Examination of the calendar of University of Punjab, were referred by specific reference to Regulation 2, which provides for notification in the syllabus by Academic Council with the approval of Syndicates and the change in syllabus is required to be notified at least one year before the date of examination. Learned counsel added that the impugned change was brought with the approval of Syndicates and the same was not notified a year prior to examination. Learned counsel has lastly contended that the Council, which has decided the change is not Academic Council within the meaning of section 2(i) of University of Punjab Act, 1973, nor the change in the course is the course as contemplated in section 8(3) of Act IX of 1973. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No,5540 of 2006 has adopted the line of argument of Mr. Rajwana and submitted further that the impugned change is harsh, it is impracticable and aimed at to spoil the professional career of the petitioners. The students have been burdened unnecessarily. A course of full one year is being taught and completed in 5 months time. The students of 5th year as well as of 4th year are attending for practical demonstration. It is resulting into overcrowding in the Ward, improper exposure to patients and substandard. He has argued that 34 Lectures in the fourth year, in both the subjects, were taught in 9 months. 60 Lectures in each subject, used to be taught to the student in 5th year M.B.,B.S. Over a period of 8 months. By reducing the period, both the subjects are taught in a hasty manner with inadequate demonstration. Learned counsel submitted further that instant session started on 10-11-2005 and the impugned notification was issued on 17-1-2006 i,e, 2 months and 7 days after the commencement of the session. The students were informed about the change on 28-4-2006 when 2/3rd of the academic session has already passed. Learned counsel lastly referred to the letter dated 8-2-2006, addressed to Vice-Chancellor, King Edward Medical.
University, by 5 Professors of K.E.M. University in the relevant subject, wherein they disapproved the change as the same is not feasible and will effect adversely the standard of medical education.
4. Besides hearing learned counsel for University of Punjab and PM & DC, we have heard Dr.Mumtaz Hassan Vice-Chancellor, Raza Mir, Professor of ENT and Saleem Akhtar, Professor of Medicine of K.E.M.U. Dr. Mumtaz Hassan, Vice-Chancellor of University has addressed with profound skill and in articulate manner. He has given the numerical figures about the lectures taught in the relevant subjects. According to him total lectures prescribed for each subject are 96 out of which 54 lectures have so far been delivered with practical demonstrations in the relevant wards of the hospital. He is confident that the course is to complete by or before 29-8-2006. The examination will be taken on 4th of October, 2006 and the students will have ample time for preparation. He has provided fresh schedule, in view of whereof whole syllabus in both the subjects, will be covered, at the end of the sessions. He has conveyed that the Professors and other teaching staff, have opted to sacrifice their vacations, so that course shall be completed within the sessions. We were told that both the subjects i,e, Eye and ENT are minor subjects. Total marks in each subject are 150 and total period/lectures required for completion' of course are 96 lectures. As against that, total marks in major subject are 500 and lectures required for completion of course are 150.
4-A. We have been informed that re-arrangements have been made in the wards to accommodate students of 4th years. The students of final year during the relevant time are not permitted in the wards to give free access to 4th years students, to the wards for practical demonstration. Professors have also endorsed the view of Vice-Chancellor. They have submitted that no problem or difficulty is either faced by students or by the teaching staff, in completion of the syllabus within this year. They have denied that the impugned change will effect either the standard or result into overburdening the students.
5. The action impugned in these petitions does not relate to change in the course of subjects. The course, the period for completion of the course, syllabus and the length of the professional year is unaltered in the proposed change. The change under the new policy is with regard to subject of Eye and ENT which are now being taught in 3rd professional (4th year) instead of final year (4th professional). The manner of the examination and the syllabus will remain the same under the changed policy. Relevant law referred by Mr. Rajwana, Advocate relate to the change of syllabus, hence not applicable to the case in hand.
6. It is the right of the respondents to lay down the policy for conduct and regularizing its examination. Rules and regulations framed A by the University Authorities are left to the authorities itself to interpret such rules. The Courts have to avoid, to interrupt the same unless a case of grave injustice is made out. Intervention by the Courts in the matters of policy of the University in the conduct and regularization of examination, will make it difficult for the University administration to run its internal affairs relating to examination etc. We are, in this respect, fortified by the dictum of the apex Court laid down in the case of Muhammad Ilyas v. Baha-ud-Din Zikria University, Multan and another 2005 SCMR 961. Similar view has been adopted by this Court in the case of Miss Sarah Malik v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Education, Islamabad and others 2001 MLD 1026 and Muhammad Iqbal Rafi and 2 others v. Province of Punjab 1986 SCMR 680,. We do not see any force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the students will suffer due to the impugned change in the policy. Had there been a grave difficulty then other affiliated colleges with University of Punjab would have agitated against the policy. The other colleges have accepted the policy and there is no complaint from any other medical college. We do not see that any grave injustice will be done to the petitioners, if the examination in the subjects of ENT and Eye is taken and taught in the 4th professional year. The policy for teaching the above subjects, in the 4th year class is formulated on the recommendation of the Principal, Fatima Jinnah Medical College, which was duly considered by the Academic Council and thereafter Pakistan Medical and Dental Council; had approved it. They are best judges, being the policy makers, in the relevant field. The Courts cannot replace its opinion with the opinion of those who are actively involved in making such policy, merely on sympathetic considerations.
7. A student/candidate has no vested right to claim that the examination be taken and a subject be taught exactly in the manner as it has been provided in the prospectus of the college, at the time when such student was admitted to a professional college. The prospectus is subject to change and alteration and legitimate expectation set up by the petitioners is neither reasonable nor have the backing of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shafique Ahmad and others v. Province of Punjab and others PLD 2004 SC 168 has held as under:-- "9. The legitimate expectation set up by the petitioners is neither reasonable nor has the backing of any law. It also cannot be based on any rule or the prospectus of the Government Medical Colleges in the Punjab because the same is revised yearly to update the changes and contains in-built provisions to the effect that the students of the medical colleges shall be bound to abide by the rules and regulations laid down therein and the changes issued by the Government of the Punjab from time to time and the Government of the Punjab reserves the right of additions and alterations of any rule in the prospectus at any stage".
8. Further, the petitioners cannot claim as of right to be governed by the regulations prevalent at the time of their admission. A regulation is to take effect from the date of its approval by the syndicates and on examination conducted subsequent are to be governed under the regulation approved later in time. The case of Adnan Tariq v. Vice-Chancellor, University of Punjab PLD 1993 Lah. 341 can be referred in this respect.
9. Before parting with the judgment we need to mention here that Vice-Chancellor has assured us that if under the changed policy, it found that adequate period, for preparation of examination, is not left, the University will defer the schedule of examination. He, however, is of the view that such situation will not arise as the students will still have ample time to prepare for their examination.
10. For the foregoing, these petitions are without any merit and are dismissed accordingly.