' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BUKHARI, J.---This appeal through leave of this Court is directed against the order dated 24-3-2005 passed by learned Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Writ Petition No,6556 of 2004 brought by appellant was dismissed.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that appellant who was a student of King Edward Medical College tiled writ petition against the respondents with the following prayer:-- "In view of the above submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that .a writ may kindly be issued directing the respondents to issue the Roll number slip number 112 to the petitioner enabling her to sit in the remaining papers.
' It is further prayed that this chance of examination to be considered as second chance because there is no fault on the part of the petitioner, and in all respect the petitioner was/is eligible to appear in this examination.
' Any other relief deemed appropriate may also be granted to the petitioner."
3. The appellant was admitted to first year MBBS class in King Edward Medical College during the academic year 1999-2000 but respondent did not allow her to appear in the first professional MBBS examination, therefore, she filed writ petition. Brief facts have been given in paragraph No,1 of the impugned order which reads as under:- "Brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner got admission in Ist year MBBS examination in King Edward Medical College for the Session 1999-2000. The petitioner was eligible to appear in the Ist Annual Examination 2001, the petitioner did not avail the said chance. Thereafter the petitioner was eligible to appear in supplementary examination held by the University in 2001 but the petitioner also did not avail the same. The petitioner also did not avail the third chance qua examination held by the respondent in Annual Examination, 2002. The petitioner availed the fourth chance held by the respondent in Supplementary Examination, 2002 and failed in all the subjects. The petitioner was allowed to appear in the Annual Examination, 2003, held by the respondent University but he could not pass the same. The petitioner submitted admission form to appear in supplementary examination 2003 held by the respondent but, the respondent University did not issue roll number slip to the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved, tiled this constitutional petition. Respondent was directed to allow the petitioner to appear in the remaining papers of Ist Professional MBBS Examination, 2003, to be held on 7-5-2004, vide order dated 6-5- 2004. The petitioner appeared in the said examination but could not appear in two subjects as alleged by the petitioner as the roll number slip was not issued by the respondent to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner did not appear in the first paper qua the examination in question. The respondent issued the roll number slip to the petitioner to appear in the second paper at 9-00 a.m., whereas the examination had started at 8-00 a.m. Consequently, the petitioner could not appear in the second paper also."
4. Respondent No,1 filed reply and after hearing the parties learned High Court dismissed the writ petition brought by appellant vide impugned order. Hence this appeal.
5. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As mentioned above appellant was a student of first year MBBS in King Edward Medical College but she was not allowed to appear in the first professional MBBS examination. The case of appellant is that she could avail four chances to pass first professional examination but respondent did not permit her to avail fourth chance. On the other hand the case of respondent is that appellant made more than, four attempts but she failed to qualify/clear the same. As stated earlier, appellant was admitted to first year MBBS class during the session .1999-2000 but so far has not been able to clear the first professional examination. Learned counsel for the appellant explains that she could not avail first chance due to shortage of lectures. Learned Assistant Advocate- General Punjab submits that she (appellant) did not appear in examination twice without any justification. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of examination to be held in 2003, office of respondent did not receive the application/form of the appellant within due date.
However, on Court's query, the appellant has not been able to produce the said application/form which shows that The did not avail the chance deliberately and without any justification. As stated earlier, appellant was admitted to first year about eight years back but she has not been able to qualify/clear even first professional MBBS examination. In the circumstances of the case, we, find that appellant is not interested to continue her studies in Medical College. So learned high Court has rightly dismissed her writ petition. Moreover, there is controversy between the parties and the same cannot be resolved without elaborate inquiry. The _impugned order shows that learned High Court has decided the writ petition brought by appellant after appraisal of entire material available on record. Paragraph No,4 of the said order reads as under:-- "4. We have given anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the report and parawise comments. It is settled principle of law that petitioner has to pass the Ist year Professional Examination within fourth chance. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has not passed the examination in question within the prescribed chances, therefore, action of the respondent is in accordance with rules and regulations of the respondent as held by the superior Courts. It is settled principle of law that it is the duty and obligation of the petitioner to show that action of the respondent is violation of rules and regulations of the respondent with regard to the maintainability of the constitutional petition. As mentioned above, the petitioner fails to point out any violation committed by the respondent qua their rules and regulations at the time of refusing to allow the petitioner to appear after prescribed chances, therefore, constitutional petition is not, maintainable as the law laid down by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Ali Mir's case (1984 SCM R 433). Even otherwise the question of law has since been settled by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:- Nadir Khan and others V. Principal, Khyber Medical College, Peshawar and others (1995 SCM R 421); Akhtar Ali Javed v. Principal Quaid-i-Azam Medical College, Bahwalpur (1994 SCM R 532) and Muhammad Hamid Shah v. Pakistan. Medical and Dental Council through Secretary and 4 others (1996 SCM R 1101)."
6. It is a well reasoned order. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant with care because appellant is a student. However, we find that she has no case. She was not entitled to ask for a further chance to pass the examination. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order so as to warrant interference by this Court. As such this appeal has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.