The petitioners, eleven in number, got admission in M.B.,B.S. Nishtar Medical College, Multan; they qualified 1st and 2nd professional examinations, they appeared in the 3rd professional examination but could not succeed; they again appeared in the Second Annual, however, they were declared failed. Consequent to the above, the petitioners were detained in 4th year of M.B.,B.S. Class (3rd professional). According to the petitioners, they were not allowed to continue their studies with their respective batches and required to appear in failing subjects with coming 4th year class. It has been stated that respondent No,1, vide Notification, dated 22-5-2006, changed the curriculum of 4th year, whereby some courses of 4th year and 5th year were shuffled. The petitioners filed the representation before respondent No,1 seeking permission to carry on classes of 5th year along with their own batches. In the said backdrop, the petitioners filed the present constitutional petition seeking following relief:--- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that act of the respondents in disallowing the petitioners to continue their studies with their own batch/class of final year, may kindly be declared to be mala fide, illegal, without lawful authority, discriminatory and of no legal effect."
2. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the respondents filed the report and parawise comments, inter alia, stating that the petitioners appeared in 3rd Professional M.B.,B.S. Annual Examination, 2005 and they were previously promoted to final year M.B.,B.S. Class, however, when the result of 3rd Professional Annual Examination, 2005 was declared by the University of Health Sciences, they were shown as failed in various subjects and they could not even get through in 3rd Professional Supplementary Examination due to which they were detained in 3rd Professional (4th year M.B.,B.S. Class) under the Rules of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council and Colleges Prospectus. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioners were detained in 4th year M.B.,B.S. Classes, as they failed after availing Annual and Supplementary chances to get through 3rd Professional IA Examination.
3. During pendency of the constitutional petition, it was brought to the notice of this Court that Vice-Chancellor of University Health Sciences; vide Notification issued by the Registrar, on 5-7- 2006, approved that the detainee students of 3rd Professional M.B.,B.S. Shall appear in the subject of ENT and EYE in the 3rd Professional Examination, 2006. The petitioners, when confronted with the said development filed the application under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. (C.M. No,1882 of 2006) seeking amendment in the petition, so as also to challenge Notification, dated 5-7-2006. The said application was allowed by this Court on 13-11-2006 and the petitioners filed the amended petition, in which following relief was claimed:- "It is therefore, respectfully prayed that act of the respondents in disallowing the petitioners to continue their studies with their own batch/class of final year, may kindly be declared to be mala fide, illegal, without lawful authority, discriminatory and of no legal effect.
It is further prayed that the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to allow the petitioners to carry on their studies of final year with their own class/batch in the interest of justice.
It is further prayed that the Notification, dated 5-7-2006 may kindly be declared to be mala fide, illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the impugned action of the respondent authorities is contrary to the well-established principles of justice, equity and good conscience, as the respondents have misinterpreted the Notification, dated 5-7-2006. He has further submitted that the aforenoted Notification is not applicable to the detainee students rather it was applicable in the 4th year M.B.,B.S. Class. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents have reiterated the factual and legal position taken in their parawise comments. He has further submitted that the constitutional petition is not maintainable, as the petitioners did not file the application under section 10 of University of Health Sciences Ordinance, 2002 and as such, failed to avail alternative remedy. He has relied upon Nadir Khan and others v. Principal, Khyber Medical College, Peshawar and others 1995 SCMR 421 and Rashid Nawaz and 7 others v. University of the Punjab through Vice- Chancellor, Lahore and 3 others PLD 2007 Lah.78.
5. To our mind, following two questions have arisen in this case, which need determination by this Court:---
(i) Whether action of the respondents in disallowing the petitioners to continue with their studies in final year is illegal, without lawful authority and discriminatory?
(ii) Whether Notification, dated 5-7-2006 is illegal, mala fide and is of no legal effect.
5- A. As noted above, the petitioners appeared in the 3rd Professional M.B.,B.S. Annual Examination, 2005, they were provisional promoted to final year M.B.,B.S. Class, however, they were declared failed in 3rd Professional Annual Examination, 2005 and they could not qualify in the 3rd Supplementary Examination, therefore, they were detained. Now the question arises as to whether action of the respondent authorities under the circumstances, was justified to detain the petitioners in 3rd Professional (4th year M.B.,B.S. Class) in view of the regulations of the University of Health sciences, P.M.D.C. And College Prospectus. Clause (9) of Statutes and Regulations for M.B.,B.S. First Second, Third and Final Professional Examinations of University of Health Sciences is reproduced below:--- "(9) A candidate who passes in one or more subjects but fails in the annual examination shall, if he/she so desires, provisionally be allowed to join the next higher class till the commencement of supplementary examination. The candidate, however, shall have to pass the failed subjects in this supplementary examination failing which he/she shall be detained in that class. Under no circumstances a candidate shall be promoted to next higher class till he/she has passed the Professional Examination of preceding class. The regulation shall be applicable to all categories of candidates, whether fresh or failed."
PMDC Regulation Section IV Examination "(3) No student can be promoted to the higher classes unless he passes all the subjects of the previous classes."
Clause 3 of Colleges Prospectus states as under:--- "3 (a) In case a student fails to pass the professional M.B.,B.S. Examination in the second annual examination his provisional promotion to the next higher class shall stand automatically cancelled and he/she shall revert to the previous class and the lectures and practical etc. Attending during his/her provisional promotion shall also stand cancelled.
(b) If a student appears in the second annual examination for the first time as he/she did not appear in the first annual examination and failed in any subject in the second annual examination, he/she will be detained in the same class and will not be promoted to the next class."
Joint reading of the aforenoted regulations amply manifests that a candidate who passes in one or more subjects but fails in the Annual Examination shall provisionally be allowed to join the next higher classes, but the candidate shall have to pass in failed subjects in the Supplementary Examination, failing which he/she shall be detained in that class and that no student can be promoted to the higher classes unless he/she passed all the subjects of the previous classes. In view thereof we feel that the petitioners who failed even after availing two opportunities could not be promoted and allowed to continue with their studies in the final year. We feel that the action of the respondent authorities by detaining the petitioners in 3rd Professional (4th M.B.,B.S. Class) is in accordance with the rules/regulations of University of Health Sciences Pakistan Medical Dental Council and Colleges Prospectus, as reproduced above. Learned counsel for the respondents have rightly relied upon the judgment of Nadir Khan (ibid), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has dealt with and decided the questions relating to the regulations framed by the Pakistan Medical Dental Council. That answers the first question.
6. Now coming to the second question regarding Notification, dated 5-7-2006. The said question was dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in the case reported as Rashid Nawaz and 7 others v. University of the Punjab through Vice-Chancellor and others PLD 2007 Lah. 78 wherein it has inter alia been held that the authorities have vested right to lay down policy for conduct and regularizing of its examination and that the policy for teaching the subjects in 4th year was properly and legally formulated. It appears appropriate to reproduce paras.6 and 7 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:--
6. It is the right of the respondents to lay down the policy for conduct and regularizing its examination. Rules and regulations framed by the University Authorities are left to be authorities itself of 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 the alteration and legitimate expectation set up by the petitioners is neither reasonable nor have the backing of law. The Honourable 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 Pule in the prospectus at any stage ".
As the said questions had already been decided therefore, no further findings are necessary to be given.
7. In the above perspective we feel that the petitioners are not entitled for asked for relief and we are not persuaded exercise constitutional jurisdiction in the matter, which is not only discretionary but equitable also.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is devoid of merits, hence stands dismissed with no order as to costs.