' Respondent No,3 under section 33 of Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962 (Ordinance XXXII of 1962) made regulations for degree of Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS). The respondents fixed the criteria of at least 60% marks in aggregate in the Intermediate Science Examination (Medical Group) (F.Sc.). Respondents adopted the regulations and fixed eligibility criteria in the same manner i.e, 60% marks in F.Sc. Pre-Medical. Subsequently the advertisement was published by University of Health Sciences, Lahore for Entry Test for admission of first year M.B.B.S, and BDS for the year, 2008. The eligibility for the examination was at least 750/1100 marks unadjusted in F.Sc. Pre- medical. Petitioner, who has 'secured 60% of the marks was lacking in the eligibility criteria for the Entry Test as she secured 662/1100 marks. Petitioner thus challenged the criteria/policy of the respondent No,2.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the 'petitioner that the petitioner is eligible to sit in exam as the criteria fixed by respondent No,3 is 60% unadjusted marks. The same criteria has been fixed in advertisement, dated 18-8-2008 published hy Pakistan Medical and Dental Council and by respondent No,l Margallah College of Dentistry. Learned counsel has submitted that the subsequent advertisement by respondent No,3 is of no value as the matters relating to the admissions have to be determined by P.M.D.C, and not by University of Health Sciences. Learned counsel has submitted that to establish a uniform practice and rules, the decision of P.M.D.C, is to prevail as against University of Health Sciences. Learned counsel in support of his contentions has referred to the cases reported as PLD 2003 Lahore 572, PLD 2005 Lahore 261 and 1995 SCMR 491.
3. The question arises, as to whether the criteria fixed by University of Health Sciences of the Entry Test 2008 can be assailed in writ jurisdiction? To answer this question, reference to recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan will not be inapt. It has been held in the case of Shafique Ahmed and others v. Government of Punjab and others (PLD 2004 SC 168) that:- "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 of 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. Affiliation of the Punjab Medical College, Faisalabad with the University of Health Sciences, Lahore has not deprived the petitioners of any benefit which might have accrued to them bad their college remained affiliated with the University of the Punjab.
They will remain associated with their college and get the same M.B.B.S, degree at the conclusion of the five years' course which would have been awarded by University of the Punjab. The University of Health Sciences, Lahore is a specialist University which has been established, inter alia, to improve the quality and standard of education and meet the challenges and requirements of the changing times and has also been accorded the requisite recognition by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council, therefore, their anxiety about the status of the degree of M.B.B.S., to be awarded by it is unfounded."
4. It was further held by the apex Court in the case of Muhammad Umar Wahid and others v.
University of Health Sciences, Lahore and others (PLD 2006 SC 300) that:-- "In the present case Regulation No,3 of the Statutes and Regulations of the University of Health Sciences Lahore, dated 14-7-2004, reproduced above which admittedly is applicable to all the Medical Colleges falling under its authority, in unequivocal terms imposes a bar on the promotion of students to the second year until all the subjects in the first professional Part-1 examination have been cleared. The said provision is not only in conflict with the restrictions imposed by the P.M.D.C., but is a step further in. Achieving the objects for which the provision was incorporated, namely, to strengthen the academic competency of the students."
5. As against that, the petitioner had alternate remedy available to her under section Lahore 10 of the University of Health Sciences Lahore Ordinance, 2002. Since the Entry Test has already been taken place, therefore, we would not stretch our jurisdiction too far to disturb the whole set up at this stage. Moreso, when the petitioner has not availed the alternate remedy of approaching respondent No,3 under section 10 of the Ordinance of 2002. This writ petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to approach respondent No,2 under the provisions of section 10 of Ordinance, 2002 who, if approached, will decide the matter within the parameters of law and consider the case of the petitioner on compassionate ground, as well.