' NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, J.---The petitioner is an Iranian citizen and was allowed admission in the MBBS classes by the Government of Pakistan vide letter dated 6-10-2007 and was assigned Fatima Jinnah Medical College, Lahore for the purpose of completion of her medical education. The petitioner appeared in the First Professional MBBS Part-I Examination held in 2009 and was declared pass. For the purpose of getting through the First Professional MBBS Part-II Examination the petitioner availed of four chances and successively failed. The University of the Punjab Lahore while declaring her results of 4th attempt in First Professional MBBS Part-II Examination supplementary examinations of 2011 held in March 2012, declared the petitioner ineligible for further medical education in Pakistan vide result intimation card dated 17-5-2012.
2. Through the instant writ petition the petitioner has prayed that she be allowed 5th chance for First Professional MBBS Part-II Examination. The prayer clause of the writ petition is reproduced below:- "In view of the submissions it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the writ petition may kindly be accepted and the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to avail 5th chance for MBBS 1st Professional Part-II examination and to keep on the role of the college during the pendency of this writ petition. The result intimation card regarding to not (not to be) eligible for further medical examination in Pakistan be suspended meanwhile."
3. Para wise comments were requisitioned from the respondents which have been submitted by the respondent No,2.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that although the petitioner has availed of four chances to pass her First Professional MBBS Part-II Examination but the Courts have been allowing the submission of admission papers to different candidates in the MBBS examinations granting one further opportunity to those candidates to appear in the medical education examinations and therefore the petitioner is also entitled to be treated accordingly and one more chance be allowed to the petitioner to appear in the First Professional MBBS Part-II Examination of the University of the Punjab which is likely to be conducted in the near future. In this respect the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to some interim orders issued by different Courts photocopies of which have been placed on the record.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent No,2 as well as the learned A.A.-G. Has opposed the instant writ petition. The learned counsel for the respondent No,2 has argued that the petitioner got admission on the basis of prospectus a copy of which has been placed on the record in which it has been clearly laid ever since the year 2004 that any student who fails to clear the First Professional M.B.B.S. Part-II examination in four chances availed or un-availed after becoming eligible for each examination shall cease to become eligible for further medical education in Pakistan. The learned counsel for the respondent No,2 has referred to Chapter-I of the Calendar of the University of the Punjab, Lahore in clause-8 of which it has been provided that a candidate for First Professional M.B.B.S. Examination can only be allowed four chances availed or un-availed by the University and if a candidate does not pass through the said examination he/she shall cease to be eligible for further medical or dental education. The learned counsel for the respondent No,2 has relied upon the reported judgment announced by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan AKHTAR ALI JAVED V. PRINCIPAL, QUAID-I-AZAM MEDICAL COLLEGE, BAHAWALPUR (1994 SCM R 532), RANA SAEED AHMAD V. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, BAHAUDDIN ZAKRIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN (1996 SCM R 792), MUNAZA HABIB AND OTHERS V. THE VICE CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS (1996 SCM R 1790), OMER NASSAR MUHAMMAD V. PRINCIPAL, NISHTAR MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS (2006 SCM R 695), MUHAMMAD ALI BUGTI V. N.E.D.UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (2007 SCM R 226), V. C. UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB, LAHORE V. MST. MARIA HIDAYAT KHAN AND OTHERS (2007 SCM R 1231) and an unreported judgment announced by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Constitutional Petition No,2457 of 2010 dated 4-8-2011 and another unreported judgment announced in Constitutional Petition No,96-L of 2009 dated 18-9-2009; an unreported judgment announced by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No,14532 of 2010 dated 5-8-2010 has also been referred to in support of his contentions by the learned counsel for the respondent No,2 to the effect that if a candidate has already availed 'of prescribed chances as per rules and regulations of the concerned universities, the Courts are not to show indulgence in favour of such a candidates for allowing them further chances to pass their respective examinations. The learned A.A.-G has also supported the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent No,2.
6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The petitioner has admittedly availed of the four chances allowed by the regulations of the University of Punjab to pass her First Professional M.B.B.S. Part-II examination. The calendar of University of Punjab in its Chapter-I dealing with the Statutes and Regulations for the degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (M.B.B.S.) in its clause-8 has provided as follows:- ["A candidate who fails to clear the First Professional M.B.B. S. Examination in four chances availed or un-availed offered by the University, shall cease to be eligible for further Medical/Dental Education. The Regulation shall be applicable to all the categories of the candidates whether they are fresh or failed candidates."
' The Regulation shall be effective w,e,f, the First Annual Examination of 19881.
' The petitioner was thus declared ineligible for further medical and dental education in Pakistan on the ground that she remained unsuccessful in the four chances availed by her to pass the First Professional M.B.B.S. Part-II examination. In the latest unreported judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No,2 the following observation was made by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in paragraph No,5:-- "5. Following the law already laid down by this Court, referred to hereinabove, we are of the view that the High Court was not properly assisted and the principles declared by this Court, whereby the relief of granting 4th chance to a student was never encouraged by this Court and declined.
Relevant para from the judgment is reproduced herein below:-
6. "The above facts have not been controverted by the respondent. It is well-settled that as far as a candidate is concerned, he/she is supposed to take examination according to the prescribed rules and regulations of the University. If prescribed chances have not been availed then there is no scope for granting addition (additional) chance to a such candidate. In this behalf reference may be made to the judgments that have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner."
8. In the reported judgment (2007 SCM R 1231) the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan made the following observations in paragraphs Nos.5, 6 and 7:-- "5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant pleadings. In the para wise comments submitted by petitioner in High Court, it is stated that respondent did not avail chances to appear in examinations 1st annual, 2003, 2nd annual, 2003, 1st annual 2004 and 2nd annual 2004. Reference has also been made to the University Calendar Volume II, 1998, Chapter IV Regulation 8, which states that if a candidate does not avail four chances he/she is not entitled to 5th Chance for the purpose of same examination.
6. The above facts have not been controverted by the respondent. It is well-settled that as far as a candidate is concerned, he/she is supposed to take examination according to the prescribed rules and regulations of the University. If prescribed chances have not been availed then there is no scope for granting addition (additional) chance to such a candidate. In this behalf reference may be made to the judgments that have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. Thus for the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that as for (far) as respondent is concerned she is not entitled to avail 5th chance in the examination and learned High Court without taking into consideration the above provision of law as well as law laid down by this Court, granted relief to her."
' In the reported judgment (1996 SCM R 1790) the concept of the powers of the University to issue necessary regulations was discussed in Paragraph No,8 and the following law was laid down at page 1793:-- "8. Undoubtedly section 14(3) of the University Act, confers upon the Vice-Chancellor, jurisdiction to take action in case of emergency in anticipation of the approval of the Syndicate. It is established from the documents on the file that neither the Academic Council nor the Syndicate of the University was available at the relevant time, when the Council pressed for implementation of the decision in respect of the 1st Professional M. B. B. S. Examination the Vice Chancellor, therefore, competently issued the Regulation. The Board of Studies in Medicine, the Academic Council and the Syndicate of the University confirmed and accorded necessary approval.
' It is true, as not controverted by learned counsel for petitioners that as the time of petitioners admission in the M.B. B.S. Class the College Prospectus did contain an instruction for the information of the students that they were required to qualify First M.B.B.S. Professional Examination in four chances, failing which they would cease to be eligible to pursue their studies in Medical/Dental Education in Pakistan. The petitioners were offered four chances to qualify the First Professional M. B. B. S. Examination and having remained unsuccessful, cannot legally compel the University Authorities to provide them further chance."
9. The learned single Judge of this Court in an unreported judgment announced on 5-8-2010 in Writ Petition No,14532 of 2010 made similar observations in the concluding paragraph, a copy of which has been produced before this court and is reproduced below:- "Even otherwise the Universities have been vested with powers to regulate conduct of examinations by issuing regulations and according to the regulations the petitioners have availed all the chances to clear the examination in question and they cannot legally compel the University Authorities to provide them more chances, as such, the prayers made in this petition cannot be granted as the petitioners are not entitled to any further chance in view of the aforesaid regulations as well as the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the respondent-University."
10. The consistent view of the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan as reproduced above as well as of a learned single Judge of this Court is that a petitioner who has been allowed the prescribed chances to pass the examination as per regulations of the University and fails to succeed therein cannot claim a vested right for seeking indulgence of the Courts in Pakistan for the purpose of allowing one more chance to such a candidate to appear in the examination.
11. The professional examination in the fields of Science and Humanities are the source of improving the ability of the candidates. The students studying medical education must acquire sufficient skills and ability in the chances provided by the regulations of the Universities and to go through the examinations and succeed therein. A medical student who fails to acquire the proficiency in such availed or un-availed chances does not deserve to claim further indulgence by the Court in order to compel the Universities to allow more chances to such a candidate. This practice will amount to forcing the in efficiency and incompetence of an undeserving student to continue with his/her education in the field in which his/her merit has been sufficiently tested at least four times by the University in the Medical College; such a person cannot become a good doctor so as to deal with the life and health of the people.
12. The impugned order passed by the University of Punjab declaring the petitioner ineligible for further educational studies in the M.B.B.S. Classes therefore does not suffer from any illegality. The reference of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the interim orders passed in different writ petitions by the High Courts have been disapproved by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the above reported judgments. The instant writ petition therefore being devoid of any merits is accordingly dismissed.