' ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.---Mah Rukh petitioner/a student of MBBS Part-I Sheikh Zayad Medical College Rahim Yar Khan has lodged this constitutional petition under Article 199 stating that she participated in MBBS Part-I examination held in October, 2010, however, failed in the subject of Physiology having 49/100 marks in written test whereas she got 70/100 marks in viva voce; that she again attempted in supplementary examination held in January 2011 but again failed in the subject of Physiology having 47/100 marks in theory and 70/100 marks in viva voce; that respondents have debarred her to join the classes of Part-II and to appear in the Part-II Examination to be held on 19- 9-2011, hence, this petition, on the grounds that petitioner's detention in MBBS Part-I is unilateral and in excess of jurisdiction; that petitioner has third chance to pass M.B.B.S. Part-I till the result of forthcoming attempt she cannot be detained in the Part-I; that respondents themselves allowed her to join Part-II Classes till April, 2011, therefore, permission earlier granted to her cannot be recalled or rescinded. She has prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to allow her to join the MBBS Part-II classes and participate in the examination of Part-II scheduled for 19-9-2011.
2. Parawise comments on behalf of respondents have been received whereby it is contended that the petitioner has failed to pass MBBS Part-I examination in two given chances i.e, annual and supplementary examination, therefore, she has no right of promotion to the higher class unless she passes all the subjects of the previous class as per rules and regulations.
3. I have given patient hearing to learned counsel for the parties, learned A.A.-G. And perused the record.
4. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has a right to be promoted to join the MBBS Part-II classes and to participate in forthcoming examination of Part-II Scheduled for 19-9-2011 without passing the previous class in totality on the basis of "carry on system" in order to enable her to continue professional education without wastage of time.
5. I am afraid learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. Petitioner's plea for promotion to the next higher class without passing the previous class amounts to seek permission to "carry on basis", which is not permissible under the rules. In the regard Rule 9 of the Statutes and Regulations for MBBS First, Second, Third and Final Professional Examinations notified by the University of Health Sciences Lahore vide Notification No,7040/UHS/REG-04 dated 14-7-2004 is reproduced as under:-- "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."
6. Simultaneously, Clause (3) of Section-IV (Examination) of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Regulations dated 2-3-1998 for MBBS is also reproduced hereunder as ready reference:-- "No students can be promoted to the higher classes unless he passes all the subjects of the previous classes."
7. It is pertinent to mention that the proposition agitated by the petitioner has earlier been examined and settled by the superior courts in various cases of like nature. In the case of Miss Khalida Zafar v. Controller Nursing Examination and others (1996 CLC 1750) it was observed that "carry on system" in education field would eclipse and vanish for it was a source of indiscipline in educational institutions. It was further observed that carry on system in educational field should not be blessed by the courts for, the same not only offends law but also against ethics. In the case of Muhammad Ilyas v. Bahauddin Zakriya University Multan and another (2005 SCM R 961) it was observed that Rules and Regulations framed by the University Authorities for the purposes of conducting/regularizing its examinations etc. Were required to be interpreted by the university authorities themselves, and not by the courts, otherwise it would be difficult for the university administration to run its internal affairs relating to the examination. Similar proposition has been finally settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Umar Wahid and others v.
University of Health Sciences Lahore and others (PLD 2006 SC 300). Relevant extract whereof is reproduced hereunder:-- "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 the 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 I examination have been cleared. The said provision is not only not 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."
8. Petitioner's plea to have a right of promotion in MBBS Part-II and to participation in forthcoming examination of MBBS Part-II scheduled for 19-9-2011 without passing all the subjects of previous class is devoid of any law or rules on the subject. She has miserably failed to substantiate her locus standi to seek indulgence of this Court through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Needless to mention that MBBS doctors are suppose to be fully conversant and equipped with the professional knowledge and skill in the relevant discipline to attend the patients in order to cure their diseases and restore their health. Therefore, sought for promotion to a higher class without passing all the subjects of previous class cannot be acceded to on the basis of principle of equality between the citizens.
9. For the above discussion and reasons petitioner has not been able to make out any case to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. This petition has no force at all, therefore, it is dismissed.