MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANWAR, J:-Muhammad Khalid, Director Finance of Peshawar Medical College through this petition filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is seeking review of the judgement rendered in W.P No.678-P/2025 titled "Peshawar Medical College through Prof Dr. Hafeez-Ur-Rehman, Dean Health Sciences Vs. Pakistan Medical & Dental Council (PMDC), G-10/4, Mauve Area, Islamabad, through its Registrar and 02 others" dated 18.02.2025 with the prayer that by reviewing the judgement, writ petition may be revived and it may be decided in consonance with the prayers made therein especially, the declaration forenhanced seats from 100 to 150 for the year 2023-24 to protect the interest of those students, who were admitted by the petitioner institute for the session 2023-24 based upon the permission of respondent No.1 (PMDC)in their Web Portal dated 24.11.2023 and publication of KMU for admission of MBBS students for the year 2023-24 on 01.12.2023.
2. Mr. Fida Gul, Advocate, learned counsel for petitioner contended that in view of the basic criteria in Accreditation Standards, 2019, after fulfilment of the requisite requirements, PMDC has provisionally increased the seat of MBBS from 100 to 150 for academic session of 2020-21 and since the enhancement of the seats were subject to the fulfilment of the requirements of higher education commission Islamabad the petitioner institute has complied with the direction to meet with the criteria of Accreditation but PMDC has not adverted to inspect the petitioner institute for confirmation of the seat from 100 to 150 but in view of the permission, number of the seats were enhanced on the Portal of PMDC and KMU up to 150. He also referred to the incentive plan granted by PMDC with different categories wherefrom category-A pertains to "permission to increase students by batch of 50 every three years subject to conduct of recognition evaluation to determine enhancement of capacity" and in view of the above, KMU advertised the seats of petitioner/institute as 150 and being so, the petitioner institute admitted 150 students for the session 2023-24. He added that neither the petitioner institute has violated the judgement of this Court rendered in W.P No.4737-P/2024 dated 17.10.2024 nor has committed any act inconsistent with the guidelines of Higher Education Commission or PMDC however, the laxity shown by the PMDC in furtherance of enhancement of seats, the students who were admitted in 2023 have become scapegoat now their future is at risk. He went on to say that in the writ petition, it was one of the prayer of the petitioner but in the judgement, there is no reflection in terms of direction to the respondents for enhancement of the seats from 100 to 150nor interest of the already admitted students has been discussed and safeguarded. At the tail end of his submission, he contended that by review of the judgement no prejudice would be caused to the contesting respondents.
3. Mr. Jehangir Jadoon, Advocate, counsel for PMDC, contended that the petitioner institute was never permitted to admit the students more than the sanctioned seats and this was reason that this Court while deciding W.P No.4737-P/2024 restrained the petitioner institute from admitting the students more than the sanctioned seats. He added that the summary for the admission of 2023- 24 for the petitioner institute was 100 as reflected from page No.27 of the writ petition with specific date i.e. 11.01.2025. Likewise, page No.24 of the writ petition reflects that the number of the seats were enhanced on 25.12.2024 from 100 to 150; thus, enhancement period was only of 17 days but the petitioner institute admitted the students much earlier to that; thus, even the information disseminated from the Portal is of no help to the petitioner institute and even otherwise, it is not a clerical or arithmetical mistake for determination of the application for review of the judgment.
4. Mr. Abdul Munim Khan, Advocate, representing KMU contended that enhancement of the seats from 100 to 150 is the job of PMDC; thus, neither through publication nor the information reflecting on the Portal of KMU or PMDC could provide any justification for admission of students more than the sanctioned seats, the petitioner institute could not admit the students; thus, the interest, if any, of the students admitted for the year 2023-24 is the internal matter of students and petitioner institute. He also prayed for dismissal of this petition.
5. We have heard Mr. Fida Gul, Advocate, for the petitioner, Mr. Jehangir Jadoon, Advocate, for respondent-PMDC and Mr. Abdul Munim Khan, Advocate, for respondent-KMU and with their valuable assistance perused the record.
6. Review of the judgement, modification thereof is a statutory right provided to an aggrieved person but within limitations provided under the provisions of section 114 read with order XLVII rule 1 C.P.C rather this Court, while hearing the application for review, will not sit as a Court of appeal against its own judgment/ decision/ findings. Ref. "Sajid Mehmood Vs. Muhammad Shafi" (2008 SCMR 554). Reliance is also placed on the cases of "Sajid Mehmood versus Muhammad Shafi"
(2008 SCMR 554) and "Mahmood Hussain Lark and others Versus Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and others"(2010 SCMR 1036), wherein it was enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that: "We have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the petitioners in person, gone through the judgment sought to be reviewed. We are of the view that before an error can be a ground of review, it is necessary that it must be one which is apparent on the face of the record and that it must be so manifest, so clear, that no Court could permit such an error to remain on record. Incorrectness of a conclusion arrived at after a conscious perusal of record and in-depth examination of evidence cannot be made a ground for review because to permit a review on the ground of incorrectness would amount to granting the Court jurisdiction of re-hearing appeals against its own judgment."
7. It was the case of the petitioner institute that they have fulfilled the requirements of PMDC and now the PMDC is legally bound to inspect the petitioner institute and to submit the report for further progress on the application for enhancement of the seat. At the time of hearing of the petition, latter was questioned about the fulfilment of the requirement, who submitted that the team of PMDC shall inspect/visit the petitioner institute and thereafter the matter shall be resolved through a speaking order and if all the requirements were met with by petitioner institute, the PMDC shall grant the permission and enhance the number of seats. Since, the matter pertains to visit of the petitioner institute and as per contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner institute have complied with the conditions and fulfilled all the basic requirements for enhancement of the seats; thus, with the proper application of mind this Court has disposed of the petition by directing respondents to visit the petitioner institute and decide the fate of application but within particular period.
8. It is an admitted fact that at the time of admission of students for session 2023-24, petitioners institutes were having no permission and it was rightly observed by this Court in earlier round of litigation when W.P No.4737-P/2024 was being disposed of, whereby, petitioner institute was directed not to allow and admit student more than the sanctioned. Moreover, the particulars of the students who were admitted for session 2023-24 have not been annexed with the instant review application.
9. Be that as it may, the matter of the enhancement of the seats is subject to the fulfilment of the requirement, which could be considered by the team of PMDC and the matter shall be decided by the competent authority; thus, the disposal of petition through impugned order by this Court could neither termed as clerical or arithmetical error floating on the surface of record effecting the interest of petitioner who were admitted by the petitioner; hence, the application for review of the judgement could not be entertained. It is by now an established legal precedent that issues, which have been previously raised and adjudicated upon cannot be re-agitated or re-examined in review jurisdiction, as the review jurisdiction is not a forum for re-hearing or re-arguing matters already considered and decided. Rel: "Sh. Mehdi Hassan Vs Province of Punjab through Member, Board of Revenue and 5 others"(2007 SCMR 755), wherein it was observed by the apex Court that: "We having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with their assistance have found that the contentions raised by the learned counsel in support of this petition have been exhaustively dealt with in the judgment under review. This is settled law that the points already raised and considered before the Court, cannot be re-agitated in review jurisdiction which is confined to the extent of patent error or a mistake floating on the face of record which if not corrected may perpetuate illegality and injustice. The mere fact that another view of the matter was possible, or the conclusion drawn in the judgment was wrong, would not be valid grounds to review the judgment unless it is shown that the Court has failed to consider an important question of law. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any such error of law in the judgment or interference in the review jurisdiction."
For the scope of review of the judgement reference may be made to the case of "Mian Rafiq Saigal and another vs. Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. And another" (PLD 1997 SC 865) wherein it was observed by the apex Court that: "It is now well-settled that the exercise of review Jurisdiction does not mean a rehearing of the matter and that as finality attaches to the orders a decision, even though it is erroneous per se, would not be grounds to justify its review. Accordingly, in keeping with the limits of the review jurisdiction it is futile to reconsider the submissions which converge on the merits of the decisions."
Further reliance may also be placed on the cases of "Haji Bahadar Khan vs. Habib Ahmad and others" (2021 CLC 114), "Haji Muhammad Botta and others v. Member (Revenue) BOR and others" (PLD 2010 SC 1049),"Haji Ishtiaq Ahmad vs. Bakhshaya" (1976 SCMR 420) and Naseeb Jan's case (PLD 2003 Peshawar 66). AliAhmad versus Muhammad Iqbal(2009 SCMR 394).
10. Since the criteria for enhancing seats in private medical colleges involve factors like infrastructure, faculty, and the college's ability to meet the requirements of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC), thus, the institute is required to meet the minimum standards set by the PMDC. The major factors are: i) Infrastructure Requirements: Adequate facilities such as lecture halls, laboratories, libraries, and hostels must be available to accommodate the increased number of students. ii) Faculty Strength: The college must have enough qualified teaching staff to maintain the student-to-teacher ratio. iii) Clinical Training Facilities: Affiliated teaching hospitals must have the capacity to provide clinical training to the additional students. iv) Compliance with Regulations: The institution must adhere to the guidelines and inspection criteria set by the medical council for seat enhancement Because the enhancement of seat is based upon the requirement of PMDC and until the petitioner institute is inspected by the respondent (PMDC) and analyzed on their criteria, no enhancement of seats could be directed by this court and that was the reason that this court directed PMDC to decide the fate of the application of petitioner institute.
11. Insofar as the interest of students who were admitted by the petitioner institute, it is the internal matter of the petitioner institute and the students but in no manner their admission in the petitioner institute could be legitimized through an order of the court if the permission was not accorded by the authority concerned. In this context the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ali Yousaf and another v. Chairman of Academic Council and Principal Dow Medical College, Karachi (2000 SCMR 1222) may be referred wherein it was held that: In this matter, the Honourable supreme court while referring to another judgment reported in 1994 SCMR 532 in the case of Akhtar Ali v. Principal Quaid-e-Azam Medical College Bahawalpur held that right to seek admission in an educational institution and to continue studies therein is always subject to the rules of discipline prescribed by the institution and therefore, a student who intends to pursue his studies in the institution is bound by such rules. The above quoted rule in our view does not infringe upon the right of student to pursue his studies in the medical college. On the contrary it ensures arrest of falling standards of education in such institutions. In so far as the contention that the petitioner appeared in the supplementary examination under the interim orders passed by the High Court in his constitution petition and passed the same therefore, he is entitled to continue his studies. It may be mentioned here that interim orders allowing the petitioner to appear in the examination, which was to be held in January 1999 was subject to the condition that the petitioner may appear in the examination at his own risk and subject to the final decision of the case on merits. Since the high court finally dismissed the petition on merits, therefore, the question that in the last attempt made in January 1999 under interim orders of the court the petitioner passed the examination, would be of no avail.
12. Viewing the facts of this review petition in juxtaposition with the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and the scope of review, we see no substance in this petition, which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Nevertheless, copy of this order be sent to respondents PMDC for compliance with the judgement dated 18.02.2025 within 30 days. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.