' CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.--- Necessary facts out of which the present appeal arises are that respondent secured admission in Quaid-eAzam Medical College, Bahawalpur, in the year 2004 on the basis of self-finance scheme for the period of 2004-2009. Respondent No,1 appeared in First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination held by the appellants but could not succeed. Subsequently he availed second chance to qualify the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination but could not succeed.
Thereafter respondent availed 3rd chance of the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination and passed the same. Respondent appeared in Second Annual Professional M. B. B. S. Examination and result was declared in which respondent was failed. Respondent instead of appearing in 3rd and 4th Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination held by the appellants filed Constitution Petition No,1249 of 2008 in the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench against the appellant on 27-5-2008 with the following prayer:-- "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the direction may kindly be issued to respondent for the grant of 5 concession marks under notification dated 14-7-2004 in the paper of Anatomy in the first professional examination Part-II as in other cases were granted and declare pass.
' That till the pendency of main petition, petitioner may kindly be allowed to attend the classes of 3rd year classes 3rd year and to allow to appear in the 2nd professional till the pendency of main petition.
' Any other appropriate relief, which this august Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be ordered."
' The Constitution Petition was accepted by the learned High Court vide impugned judgment dated 6-3-2009. The appellants being aggrieved filed C.P. No,951-L of 2009 which was fixed before this Court on 1-12-2009 and leave was granted in the following terms:-- "Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned High Court had passed conflicting judgments with regard to the issue in question by interpreting regulation of the petitioners. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners need consideration. Leave is granted to consider the above question and any other question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the time hearing of appeal..."
' Hence the present appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants filed petition before this Court qua the issue in question in which leave was granted and finally the appeal was decided in favour of the appellants wherein this Court directed the appellants to change the culture of seeking award of grace marks in University of the Health Sciences v. Sh. Nasir Subhani and others PLD 2006 SC 243. In obedience to the direction of this Court the appellants abolished the system of awarding 5 grace marks in all M.B.,B.S./BDS Professional Examinations with effect from forthcoming annual examination 2006 and agreed to the appointment of the Convener of Assessment in each subject in its meeting held on 21-6-2006. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that Miss Sana Mussarat filed Constitution Petition No,2888 of 2007 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore, with the prayer of granting grace marks which was dismissed vide order dated 15-05-2007 which is at page 25 of the paper book. Similarly Rehan Ali 'filed Constitution Petition No,2736 of 2009 with the same prayer which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court vide order dated 24-3- 2009 which is at page 22 of the paper book. He further urges that the learned High Court had erred in law to decide the case in violation of the judgment on question of law laid down by this Court on 27-1-2006 in University of the Health Sciences v. Sh. Nasir Subhani and others PLD 2006 SC 243 whereas respondent filed Constitution Petition in the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench on 27- 5-2008 which was decided vide impugned judgment dated 6-3-2009. He further urges that the learned High Court had erred in law to accept the constitution petition filed by the respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent secured admission in the year, 2004 in the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination therefore regulations framed by the appellants in the year,. 2004 vide notification dated 14-7-2004 are not applicable. In support of his contention he has relied upon an unreported order of this Court dated 29-2-2008 passed in C.P. No,247 of 2008 (University of Health Sciences v. Atif Aslam and others). He further urges that respondent could not avail the 3rd and 4th chances due to pendency of the writ petition which was finally decided in his favour, therefore, appellants be directed to allow the respondent to avail unavailed chances of his second professional M.B.,B.S. Examination.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants in rebuttal submits that order passed by this Court on 29- 2-2008 having different circumstances with the observation that this order will not be treated as precedent rather will confine only to the extent of this case.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record. The learned Single Judge of the High Court had erred in law to accept the constitution petition of respondent in violation of the order of the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in similar circumstances in Rehan Ali's case (supra) and also by a Single Judge in Miss Sana A Mussarat's case (supra). It is settled proposition of law that judgment/order of the Division Bench of the same High Court is binding upon the Single Judge of the said Court as law laid down by this Court in all Pakistan Newspapers Society's case PLD 2004 SC 600 and Multiline Associates' case PLD 1995 SC 423. It is also settled principle of law that B leave granting order or leave refusing order is not a judgment. As learned High Court had decided the petition in violation of the law laid down by the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, therefore, the C same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. This Court directed the appellants to abolish the grace marks in Sh. Nasir Subhani's case (supra). Relevant observation is as follows:-- "Even otherwise, this culture of seeking award of grace marks is against the settled principles of good governance and improving the higher standards of professional education more particularly medical education, because the doctors are required to deal with precious human lives. Medical practitioners are expected to be fully equipped with professional skill, knowledge and expertise in the medical discipline to practise the profession, to deal with the patients and looking after their health and hygiene. On no principle or authority, therefore, in our view, the impugned judgment of the High Court can be sustained. To our mind, the High Court was not bound to exercise its writ jurisdiction which is always equitable and discretionary in favour of the respondent in the given facts and circumstances of the case."
' Sh. Nasir Subhani's case was decided on 27-1-2006 whereas the respondent filed constitution petition before the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, on 27-5-2008 which was decided vide impugned judgment dated 6-3-2009. The impugned judgment is also not in consonance with the dictum laid down by this Court.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. However, the learned counsel for the respondent has requested to give direction to the appellants to allow the respondent to appear in unveiled chances in the second professional M.B.B.S. Examination so that the future of the respondent would not suffer. This issue is not before us. The respondent is well within his right to approach the competent authority under the hardship regulations who shall, of course, decide the same in accordance with law under parental jurisdiction.