' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.-The petitioners are students of 4th year M. B., B. S. Class of Sind Medical College, Karachi. By this petition they have challenged the order of Principal of the College debarring them from appearing in the examination of 4th year scheduled to be held from 16th June, 1981. The ( petitioners appeared in 3rd year examination held in September/October, 1979 but failed.
Thereafter, they appeared in supplementary examination which was held in March, 1980. The result was announced on 18-5-1980 and they again failed. Again in supplementary examination held in September, 1980 they appeared and passed. The result was announced on 11-1-1981. Petitioners case is that in accordance with the Regulation made by Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (hereinafter called the Council) in its session held on 3rd and 4th of May, 1980 at Quetta the 3rd year students on completion of their courses were allowed to continue their training in the 4th year regardless of their results in 3rd year (also known as 2nd professional) examination, with the condition that they must clear all subjects of 2nd professional M. B., B. S. Examination before they are allowed to sit in 4th year (also known as 3rd Professional) examination. Taking advantage of this Regulation the petitioners allege to have joined the 4th Year Class in October, 1980, i.e, before the announcement of their results, and they continued their studies and clinical postings. This decision of the Council was reconsidered in its meeting held in November, 1980 and certain amendments were made which do not in any manner concern with the petitioners' case. In a nutshell the same advantages were allowed to the students who having failed in 4th Year/3rd Professional Examination were promoted to 5th Year subject to the condition that they would be eligible to appear in the final examination after they have passed all subjects of 3rd Professional and completed one year in 5th Year. The Principal of the College who is respondent No, 1 by his office order dated 30th November, 1980 clarified these decisions of the Council as under :- (1)The First Professional examination must be cleared before a student is promoted to 3rd year i.e, for clinical posting ; (2)The 3rd year students will, on completion, of their courses are allowed to continue their training in the 4th year, regardless of the result in the 2nd Professional Examination, but a candidate must clear all the subjects of 2nd Professional Examination, before he is allowed to appear in the 3rd Professional Examination.
(3)Any students who might have failed in the 3rd Professional Examination will continue his course in the final year, but shall not be allowed to take the final M. B., B. S. Examination unless he has passed all subjects of the 3rd Professional Examination and completed in the final year all the requirements of the resolutions of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council.
' Petitioners have further alleged that by another office order of 2nd November/ December, 1980, which is reproduced hereunder, the respondent No, 1 clarified that the petitioners will be entitled to appear in the Supplementary examination to be held after the Annual Examination, scheduled for January, 1981.
"OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL AND CHAIRMAN ACADEMIC COUNCIL, SIND MEDICAL COLLEGE, KARACHI Dated : 2nd Nov. 1980 No, F. 8-18/80-Estt : 4755 Dec. *Office Order* Subject :-Posting of IIIrd Year M. B., B. S. Class : ' In persuance of the decision of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council, the IIIrd Year students are required to undertake the posting of IVth Year class with immediate effect. Students who have failed in the IInd Professional Examination will be required to clear that examination before being eligible to appear in the IIIrd Professional Examination on completion of the academic session. The Old IIIrd Year classes will also be eligible to undertake the posting and the classes of IVth Year class but will not be eligible to undertake the IlIrd Professional Annual Examination to be held in January, 1981. They will, however, be in a position to undertake the Supplementary Examination provided they meet the requirements of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council regulations and the University of Karachi.
(Sd.)
(Prof. Dr. Muhammad Iliyas) B. Sc., M. B., B. S. (Mys.) DPH (Cal.) MPH (Harvard). Principal and Chairman, Academic Council Sind Medical College, Karachi ' NOTICE BOARD ' Copy to :-
1. The Clinical Co-ordinator, JPMC, Karachi.
2. The Heads of the All Deptts. JPMC & SMC, Karachi.
' Principal & Chairman, Academic Council, Sind Medical College Karachi."
' By referring to this order the petitioners have stated that respondent No, 1 had assured that the petitioners will be entitled to appear in the examination scheduled to be held in June, 1981. The petitioners have submitted that having joined the 4th Year C lass in October, 1980 they have regularly attended the classes, clinical postings and studies and are eligible to appear in the 4th Year M. B., B. S. Supplementary Examination scheduled to be held in June, 1981. However the respondent No, 1 issued a notice on 15th April, 1981, in the following terms : "With reference to their joint application dated 4-4-1981 the 4th Year M. B., B. S. Students who commenced their clinical postings from 13-12-1980 and wish to appear in the forthcoming 3rd Professional Supplementary Examination, are hereby informed that their case has been carefully considered and it has been found that this is not covered by the Pakistan P. M. D. C. Regulations."
' The petitioners, therefore; filed this petition challenging the order of the respondent No, 1 on the ground that in terms of the Regulations of the Council and the clarification and assurance given by the respondent No, 1, earlier, they are entitled to appear in the forthcoming Supplementary Examination and the order passed by the respondent No, 1 is without lawful authority.
' The petition was filed on 2nd May, 1981 and was admitted for regular hearing on 6th of May, 1981.
Notice was issued to the respondents for 4-5-1981. On that date the Advocate for the petitioner and respondent No, 2 were present but the respondent No, 1 did not appear. The matter was adjourned to 20th May, 1981. On that day Mr. A. Sattar Shaikh, the Additional Advocate-General appeared for respondent No, 1, and stated that he had received the comments, though it was not called by the Court, and requested for time. However the following order was passed by the Court :- "20-5-1981 : Mr. Ibadat Yar Khan for the Petitioner.
' Mr. A. Sattar Shaikh, Addl. A. G. For Respondent.
' Learned Additional Advocate-General states that the comments have been supplied to him today and requests for time to submit them. However, learned counsel for the petitioner requests that ad interim relief may be granted to the petitioners since the examination in which they are seeking admission is imminently to take place and if this application is not disposed of, the whole petition may become infructuous.
' We have made suggestion to the learned A. A. G. That in view of the fact that this petition has been admitted to regular hearing and the circumstances submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the via media seems to be to permit the petitioners to take the ensuing examination subject to the decision of this petition and in that case their results could be withheld until the decision of this petition. However, he submits that the comments indicate that the petitioners have not satisfied the rule requiring minimum attendance for eligibility to appear at the examination.
Upon our inquiry as to the particulars of the period falling short in each case from the prescribed requirement regarding attendance, he is unable to give such particulars. On behalf of the petitioners, their learned counsel asserts that each of the petitioner has attended the classes for the required minimum period.
' In these circumstances, the only alternative seems to be to peruse the record of attendance of each petitioner and for disposing of the interlocutory application we adjourn the hearing to 26-5- 1981. The records mentioned above shall be produced before the Court.
(Sd/-)
Judge (Sd)
Judge."
' When the matter was taken up on 26th May, 1981 the Court ordered that the matter may be fixed for regular hearing immediately on the commencement of Summer Vacations. It was further ordered : "The records relating to the attendance of the petitioners shall be kept available by respondent No, 1 on the date of hearing."
' On 9th June, 1981 when the matter came up for hearing in view of the fact that the examination is to be held from 16th June, 1981, by consent of the parties the matter was fixed for final hearing on 10th June, 1981. Respondent No, 1 had filed his comments and again filed a short-counteraffidavit on 10-6-1981 copy of which was supplied to the petitioners in Court and consequently no rejoinder affidavit could be filed by the petitioners. The respondent No, 2 has also filed his counteraffidavit.
' We have heard Mr. Ibadat Yar Khan, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. A. Sattar Shaikh, Additional Advocate-General for respondent No, 1 and Mr. R. H. Faruqi, Advocate for respondent No, 2.
' Mr. Ibadat Yar Khan the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that by virtue of the Regulations of the Council which was passed in May, 1980, the petitioners become entitled to appear in the Supplementary Examination of 4th Year M. B., B. S. Class scheduled to be held on 16- 6-1981. He has further relied upon the office orders and clarifications made by respondent No, 1 and has contended that in view of the fact that the petitioners have joined the 4th Year M. B., B. S. Class in October, 1980 and complied with all the conditions laid down by the Council they are eligible to appear in the forthcoming Supplementary Examination. The learned counsel for the respondent No, 1 has contended that the petitioners are not eligible to appear in the examination on the ground that they have not completed 75% of the attendance required by the Regulation of the Council. The learned counsel for the respondent No, 2 has further contended that the Regulations neither create any right in the petitioners nor the same can be enforced by the Court. He has further submitted that the Regulations made by the Council at Quetta and Peshawar do not absolve the petitioners from completing 75% attendance in all the subjects.
' Before we consider the contention of the petitioners whether the Regulations entitle them to appear in the examination scheduled to be held in. June, 1981, we would first deal with the aforestated contentions of the learned counsel for respondent No,
1. Mr. A. Sattar Shaikh the learned Additional Advocate-General has submitted that the Regulations made by the Council do not create any right. His main contention in this regard is that the Regulations made by the Council only allow the petitioners to carry on the clinical work but its duration and commencement has to be fixed by the respondent No,
1. The Regulations relate to internal management of the College and therefore, the Court cannot interfere in it. The argument of the learned counsel seems to be based on some misconception of facts and law both.
' The Council was first created by Ordinance XXXII of 1962. At that time it was known as Medical Council but later an amendment was made in the year 1973 by Medical Council Act X of 1973 whereby its name was amended as Medical and Dental Council of Pakistan. Under section 33 of the Ordinance the Council is empowered to make Regulations with the previous sanction of the Central Government in respect of matters categorised in section 33 (1). Under section 33, subsection (2) it is provided that in respect of matters categorised under this subsection Regulation can be made by the Council without the previous sanction of the Central Government. It empowers the Council to make Regulations "(a) prescribing a uniform minimum standard of courses of training for obtaining graduate and postgraduate medical and dental qualifications ;
(b) prescribing minimum requirements for the content and duration and courses of study as aforesaid ; (c) prescribing the conditions for admission to courses of training as aforesaid ; (d) prescribing minimum qualifications and experience required of teachers for appointment in medical and dental institutions ; (e) prescribing the standards of examination, methods of conducting the examinations and other requirements to be satisfied for securing recognition of medical and dental qualifications under this Ordinance ; (f) prescribing the qualifications and experience required of examiners for Professional examinations in medical and dentistry and antecedents to the granting of recognised medical qualifications ; (g) registration of medical or dental students at any medical or dental college or school or any university and the fee payable in respect of such registration". The Council in pursuance of this provision of law made Regulations for the degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (M. B., B. S.) which was amended from time to time. A copy of these Regulations was supplied to us by the learned counsel for respondent No, 2, which includes the Regulations made by the Council which are subject matter of the present controversy. It is nobody's case that the Regulations made by the Council which are subject matter of this petition are ultra vires or without jurisdiction. The Council has been vested with vast powers to prescribe the standards of medical education. It is authorised to make Regulations prescribing minimum requirement for the content and duration of courses of studies. It is therefore futile on the part of the learned Additional Advocate-General to contend that it is the internal matter of the College and it has nothing to do with the Council. The Council has full power and total control over the medical education. The Medical Colleges are bound by the Regulations. The Medical education has to be imparted and examinations are to held within the ambit of the Regulations. In this regard we would particularly refer to the statement of Mr. R. H. Faruqi, the learned counsel for the respondent No, 2 i.e, the University of Karachi, that the Regulations made by the Council are binding upon the University and in this regard he has submitted that if the respondent No, 1 sends the examination forms of the students certifying that they are in accordance with the Regulations made by the Council, the University will accept such form without in any manner challenging the same.
' In support of his contention that the Regulations made by the Council do not create any right and the holding of examination or declaring any student as eligible for appearing in examination is an internal matter of the College, the learned Additional Advocate-General has relied upon the case of Muhammad Sharif v. The Secretary to the Government of Punjab and 3 others (1). This case related to a dispute between the Lecturers of the College for
(1) PLD 1973 SC 497 ' inter se seniority. The promotion of a lecturer was challenged inter alia on the ground that he did not fulfil two of the essential conditions embodied in a resolution of the College Governing Council.
The High Court however, repelled this contention by observing that the rules approved by the College Governing Council were not in the nature of statutory rules but were rather internal regulations and could not therefore, be enforced by the High Court under Article 98 of the 1962 Constitution. The Supreme Court agreeing with the judgment of the High Court observed as follows :- `Before parting with this case we may observe that the High Court appears to be right in thinking that the recommendation of a subcommittee laying down conditions for promotion to Senior Class I (Junior Grade) could not be regarded as being in the nature of statutory Rules, even though they were approved by the Council itself in its meeting held on 17th of November, 1964. It would be recalled that the College Governing Council itself was created by the Administrator of the Municipal Committee of Burewala, and certain powers were delegated to it under section 33, Punjab Municipal, Act, 1911, read with section 39 thereof. The effect of this delegation was that the teaching staff and the other employees of the Municipal College, Burewala, could be appointed and removed by the College Governing Council, subject to the provisions of the Act and Rules and bye-laws made thereunder. The power to frame rules under the A ,t is rested, by sections 240, in the Provincial Government. Clause (n) of subsection (1) of this section deals with the subject of employment, punishment, suspension or removal of officers and servants of the committee. It is clear that this rule-making power cannot be delegated to any sub-committee or the College Governing Council. It was for this reason that the West Pakistan Local Council and Municipal Committee Service Rules, 1963, were framed by the Governor of West Pakistan in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 44 read with Article 89 of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, and section 29 r/w. Section 121 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960 (which had replaced the Punjab Municipal Act of 1911).
' Apart from the rules which can be framed only by the Government, the Municipal Act contemplates, by virtue of section 188, that bye-laws can be framed by a Municipal Committee.
Here again, there is no provision for a Municipal Committee to delegate this power to any subordinate sub-committee or authority.
' Such being the case, the College Governing Council or any sub-committee constituted by it could only make regulations for the internal management of the College, and such regulations could not acquire the status of statutory rules, so as to be enforced by the High Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 98 of the 1962 Constitution."
' The learned Additional Advocate-General has merely relied on the last paragraph quoted above without realising the facts of the case and the situation under which such observation was made.
The present case is completely distinguishable on facts and the observation made by the Supreme Court is not applicable for the simple reason that in the present case the Regulations have been framed by the Council under section 33 of Ordinance XXXII of 1962. Tinder the statute the Council is vested with power to frame Regulation to prescribe minimum standard of courses, the contents and duration of study, the contention for admission to course the standards of examination and methods of conducting the examination. The examinations are therefore to be held as provided by the Regulations. The Respondent No, 1 cannot alter the duration of courses of study as fixed by the Regulation. He can however within the framework of the Regulations fix dates for the commencement of the sessions and holding of the examinations. The prospectus of M. B., B. S. And B. D. S. For Medical Colleges of Sind Province for the year 1979-80 issued by the Health Department, Government of Sind in clause (1) of Part II provides that "the courses curricula and examinations for the Degree of M. B., B. S. And B. D. S. Are governed by the rules and regulations of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council currently in force and as amended from time to time". This clearly demonstrates that the entire study for M. B., B. S. And B. D. S. Course is to be regulated by the Regulations framed by the Council. We are, therefore of the clear view that the Regulations made by the Council are enforceable and applicable to all the Medical Colleges. These Regulations cannot be treated as rules relating to internal arrangement or management of the Colleges which may be optional and enforceable at the discretion of the administrative authorities of the College.
Breach of the Regulations of the Council in some cases are likely to effect the right of the candidates and or students. The High Court can therefore interfere and grant relief in cases where breach has been committed in respect of fundamental Regulations effecting the right of any person which he can claim under the Rugulation. In such cases where procedural steps are required to be taken by the College authorities it will not amount to vesting them with the discretion to avoid the Regulations.
' The learned counsel for the respondent No, 1 vehemently contended that even if the Regulations referred above are applicable, the petitioners are not absolved from completing 75% of the attendance in all the subjects. In the circumstances the question remains for consideration is whether the petitioners have not completed 75% of their attendance. In this regard reference has been made to the Regulations of the Council entitled "Regulations for the Decree of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (M. B., B. S.). Regulation No, 3 under the heading "Regulation For Professional Examination providess that "it is necessary that no student should be sent up for any examination unless he has attended 75 % of lectures, demonstrations, tutorials the practicals and clinical work both inpatients and outpatients. The 75% attendance shall not be necessary for the failed students to repeat examinations even at the time of re-admission to any part of medical studies." It is true that the students appearing for examination should have attended 75% of lectures, demonstrations, tutorials, practicals and clinical work as required by this Regulation. There can be no escape from this provision, unless relaxed by the Regulations. In this regard the petitioners have contended that they have been attending the 4th Year Class, clinical works and practical from October, 1980 and have regularly attended up to May, 1981. They have further placed reliance on the office order issued by the respondent No, 1, whereby he had clarified that "the old 3rd Year Classes will also be eligible to undertake the courses and the classes of 4th Year, class but will not be eligible to undertake the 3rd Professional Annual Examination to be held in January, 1981.
They will, however, be in a position to undertake the Supplementary Examination provided they meet the requirements of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Regulations and the University of Karachi." According to the Petitioners this office order while clarifying the position had taken into consideration all the Regulations of the Council. The learned Additional Advocate-General contended that the petitioners had joined the 4th Year Class on 13-12-1980 and therefore, in May, 1981 obviously they could not be expected to complete 75% attendance during the academic year.
If the situation was so clear that the petitioners' ineligibility was prima facie established then there was no need for the respondent No, 1 to have issued the aforestated office order dated 2nd.
November/December, 1980 informing the students falling within the category of the petitioners that they would be entitled to appear in the supplementary examination. It seems that at the time of issuing the office order there was no such objection as contended by the learned Additional Advocate-General otherwise the same would not have been issued at all. This brings down to the question whether from the date of joining the 4th Year Class till the holding of supplementary examination the petitioners have attended 75% of the lectures, demonstrations, practical and clinical works. The petitioners have asserted that they have complied with this Regulation. In the circumstances Respondent No, 1 who is required to maintain the record of regular attendance should have placed such material which may substantially dislodge the allegations made by the petitioners. We asked the learned Additional Advocate-General since when the academic year for the petitioners classes started in the College, but unfortunately neither he nor the representative of the respondent No, 1 who was present during the hearing were able to give any date and the Additional Advocate-General stated that he was not aware of it. We further enquired on what basis the respondent No, 1 is alleging that the petitioners have not attended 75 % of the classes. The learned Additional Advocate-General was not able to show us any document or to specifically state the grounds and materials on the basis of which such a statement was made by the respondent No,
1. It is noteworthy that twice respondent No, 1 was ordered to produce the attendance record and make them available in Court but his counsel did not inform that such records were not available. These records were not produced by the respondent No, I. We again enquired from the Advocate for respondent No, 1 about the record of the attendance but he for the first time stated that neither any record is available nor any such record is maintained by the College. He stated that a card is issued to the students who take signatures of their teachers on it and that is the basis for determining the attendance of the students. This was categorically denied by the petitioners. We, therefore, asked the learned Additional Advocate-General to produce the specimen card for our examination. The learned Additional Advocate-General then sought instructions from the representative of the respohdent No, 1 who state that no such card is maintained by Sind Medical College. From this enquiry it transpired that Respondent No, 1 did not have any record in his possession from which he could satisfy himself and make a clear and positive statement that the petitioners have not completed 75 % of the attendance. We are unable to understand on what basis such statement was made by the respondent No,
1. The learned Additional Advocate-General wanted us merely to rely upon the bare statement of the respondent No, 1 made in his counter affidavit which was filed on the date of hearing in Court. We are reluctant to accept the suggestion made by the learned Additional Advocate-General as the documents and register for recording the attendance has neither been produced nor maintained by the Respondent No, I. It's therefore difficult to believe the statement of the Respondent No,
1. Clause 17(c) of Part X of the prospectus issued by the Government of Sind in respect of M. B., B. S. Classes under the heading "Student Discipline and Conduct", provides that "for every lecture/practical/clinic attendance will be recorded and presence or absence of students noted. A student coming late will be marked absent unless student's excuse is accepted by the teacher concerned". Clause (d) provides that "the examination forms of the student will not be sent unless the required number of lectures and practicals pre-attended by him, as laid down by the PMDC.
Clause (e) provides that no student shall remain absent from class, clinic or lecture without prior permission of the Principal. Clause (f) provides that "deficiency in attendance below the required coverage of 3/4th of the Full Course of Lectures and practical classes and clinics will render a student ineligible for the relevant University Examination." These provisions of the prospectus clearly envisage a regular system of attendance which is to be- maintained by the teachers concerned. It is possible that due to the practical difficulties regularity in maintaining the attendance may be difficult but it cannot be denied that the college authorities are not obliged to maintain the record of attendance. If no register for attendance or record is maintained by the respondent No, 1 then it will be difficult to assess at the end of the academic year whether a particular student has attended the class to the extent of 75%, or not. In the absence of any record such determination will be left entirely at the whims and memory of the lecturers and the respondent No,
1. Such a situation is neither contemplated by the prospectus nor by the Regulations. In these state of facts we are not inclined to accept the statement of respondent No, 1.
It is based on no evidence or material worth the name. The maintenance of attendance record is one of the elementary step in the management and internal working of the college but the same is said not to have been maintained. We do not wish to check the veracity of such statement but are constrained to observe that in such a state of affairs when there is no iota of evidence available how can the Respondent No, 1 sit in judgment on the eligibility of the petitioners.
' The learned Additional Advocate-General then contended that since the petitioners have joined the 4th Year Class on 13-12-1980 within a period of 5 months it is not possible for them to complete the course and become eligible for the purposes of examination held in June, 1981. He further stated that in these circumstances the Petitioners cannot be expected to have completed 75% of the attendance. The petitioners have referred to two instances in which the second batch of old 3rd Year Class and 4th Year who had attended the classes for two months were allowed to appear in examination and have already passed out to the higher classes. The petitioners, have alleged that they have completed 8 months of studies which according to them is sufficient to complete the study of the 4th Year classes. In order to establish that the petitioners have joined the 4th Year Class on 13th December, 1980 the learned counsel for the respondent No, 1 produced before us during the course of arguments a photo copy of an alleged representation made by the petitioners in which it was stated that they have taken the clinical posting of 4th Year and classes from 13th December, 1980. Strangely enough this letter which is dated 4-4-1981 has not been signed by any person. On our querry the learned counsel for the petitioners after ascertaining from the petitioners who were present in Court denied having made any such representation. We are unable to place any reliance on the annonymous and unsigned letter alleged to have been sent to the respondent No, 1 by the petitioners. Such letters have no evidentiary value. The prospectus issued by the Sind Government relating to the conduct and discipline of the students in Part X clause 15 provides that "every student desirous of addressing the Principal by a letter must do so separately. Joint applications are prohibited and will receive no attention." It seems that it is the practice of the college or an internal arrangement exists that joint applications are discouraged and are prohibited. In the face of such a clause in the prospectus how could the respondent No, 1 accept it which is alleged to have been jointly made by the petitioners and many other students without their signatures. To support his contention the Respondent No, 1 has failed to produce any authentic document or any record of the College which should be in their possession to show that the petitioners had joined the 4th Year class and clinical postings from 13-12-1980. In the absence of the records which are to be maintained by the Respondent No, 1 in respect of the attendance from the beginning of the session till the examination it is hardly possible to rely on a bare affidavit of the respondent No,
1. As no record has been produced which in the ordinary course of management and administration of the College should have been maintained, the contentions of the respondent No, 1 cannot be accepted. In these circumstances the objections raised by the Respondent No, 1 for the eligibility of the petitioners is not valid and has not been established even prima facie.
' The Regulations under consideration had provided facility to the students as in this manner they may save one precious year. In availing the facility under these Regulations the students are bound to comply with all other conditions relating to the eligibility for appearing in the absence of any evidence on record to show that the petitioners have failed to comply with any of the Regulations laid down by the Council making them eligible for appearing in the 3rd Professional Examination leads to the conclusion that they are entitled to appear in the examination which is to be held in June, 1981.
' The learned counsel for the respondent No, 1 lastly contended that as disputed questions of facts are involved in the petition it should be dismissed. In this regard he has placed reliance on PLD 1968 SC 185, 1972 SCM R 452, 1973 SCM R 422, PLD 1974 SC 139 and PLD 1977 Lah.
363. We have examined the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and find that none of them are applicable to the present case. 1972 SCM R 452 and PLD 1974 SC 139 have no relevance. In the remaining judgments both the parties had raised substantial questions of facts duly supported by documentary evidence. There is no cavil to the proposition that the disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into by the High Court in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitu tion. However, each case has to be considered on its merits and before this principle is applied it has to be considered whether disputed questions of facts are involved in it. Merely because a certain assertion has been made and denied B by the other party does not ipso facto make it a disputed fact. In order to establish that a fact is a disputed question of fact, the party making such allegation has to make out a prima facie case or place on record certain material from which it may be possible for the Court to determine that the dispute involves controversial question of fact or that the controversy will require evidence and investigation. The controversy raised before us was in respect of the attendance. This was a simple fact which could be ascertained by looking into the register or the document maintained for recording the attendance. The respondent No, 1 wanted to take shelter behind his bare denial and the Additional Advocate-General wanted us to accept the bare statement of the respondent No,
1. Such denials cannot possibly convert a controversy into a disputed question of fact. If some material is produced or from the allegations of the petitioners it is established that the controversy requires inquiry and investigation for determining particular issue then it will involve intricate disputed questions of fact. No such step has been taken by respondents to establish that disputed questions of fact are involved in the case, ' In the result we accept the petition and direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to appear in the 4th Year (3rd Professional) Examination scheduled to be held in June, 1981. There will be no order as to costs.