1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-On what date should the Final Professional M. B.; B. S. Annual Examination of 1981 be held? This matter has now come before the Courts. The University of the Punjab first decided to hold it on 21-2-1983. This date was revised and it was then decided to hold it on 6-4- 1983. But this decision was again changed and it was announced that it shall now commence from 16-7-1983. The petitioners, who belong to the students of the 1975-80 Sessions feeling aggrieved by this latest postponement of the date of the examination have come to the Court.
2. The students, who joined the Medical Colleges in the Punjab in 1976 and normally should have taken their Final Professional M. B., B. S. Annual Examination in May, 1981, are still fighting for the date on which the said examination should be held, now in 1983. As already pointed out, the Final Professional M. B., B. S. Annual Examination of 1981 was scheduled to be held with effect from 21-2- 1983. However, on the recommendation of the Board of Studies in Medicine this date was changed by the Vice-Chancellor of the, University of the Punjab to 6-4-1983. However, this was not the end of the story for, in. February, 1983; some of the candidates submitted their petitions to the President of Pakistan for postponement of the examina--petition. These petitions were forwarded to the Vice- Chancellor by the Governor of the Punjab/Chancellor of the Punjab University for consideration. The Vice-Chancellor sent them to the Board of Studies, which body advises the Vice-Chancellor on the question, inter alia, of fixing dates for examinations conducted by the University of the Punjab, for advice. The said Board expressed the view that there was no justification for postponment of the M.
3. B., B. S. Examination.
4. It appears that the Principles of five Medical Colleges in the Punjab were of the view that the examination should be postponed till after Eid-ul-Fitr, whereas the Principal of the King Edward Medical College was of the view that the postponement of the examination for three weeks only would be suffice. The Vice-Chancellor taking into consideration the view expressed by the majority of the Principals and with a view to maintaining uniformity of standards in the examination himself decided that the examination for all Medical Colleges be held with effect from 16-7-1983. A notification to- this-effect was issued on the 5th March, 1983.
5. The petitioners herein challenged this last-mentioned decision of the Vice-Chancellor by filing a writ petition before the Lahore High Court. Before the said Court, it appears to have been contended that the Vice --Chancellor had no authority, under the law, to change the date of the examination and, therefore, his decision to postpone the examination from 16-4-1983 to 16-7-1983 was without lawful authority; that as the Principals of the variour Medical Colleges had been authorised to fix their own dates for holding the examination in their respective Colleges and there- -by the holding of more than one examination was envisaged, the University could now easily hold two examinations i.e., one on the 6th April, 1983 as was notified earlier and another on 16th July, 1983 as finally decided, which course would permit the students to sit in the earlier or the later examination at their choice.
6. During the pendency of the writ petition, it seems, that the whole matter regarding the date on which the examination should be held was again placed before the Syndicate of the University. This body concurred with the decision of the Vice-Chancellor to postpone the examination and to hold it on 16th July, 1983. Thereby incidentally also removing the objection, about the competency of the Vice-Chancellor to change the date for the examination.
7. As regards .The other submission that the University authorities might hold two examinations; one in April, 1983, as per original schedule and the second in July, 1983 to accommodate candidates of both categories, namely, (i) those who wanted to take the examination as per the original schedule, and, (ii) those who wanted it postponement, it was submitted that such a decision on the part of the University would lead to further conflict and agitation amongst the students, inasmuch as, those students who ;did not .Opt in favour of taking in the examination to be held in April, 1983, would create such a situation as would prevent their colleagues to sit in it with a view to preventing them from becoming senior to them in the matter of their graduation. The holding of two examinations, it was urged, would lead to further complications which the administration of the Province and the University authorities would be unable to face.
8. It was finally submitted that since the decision of postponement was taken by the University authorities within the framework of their lawful authority and not arbitrarily but for the above- mentioned reasons, the said decision may not be interfered with.
9. The High Court thought that as the previous orders fixing the dates of the examination by the Vice- Chancellor had been recalled and the Syndicate had taken a fresh decision in accordance with the Rules, the petition had borne fruit and was disposed of accordingly.
10. Mr. Shaukat A.I, learned counsel 'for the petitioners, in support of this petition for leave to appeal, has submitted that the view of the High Court, that the petition had borne fruit was not correct, because the petitioners had, in fact wanted the examination to be held in April, 1983 and this prayer had not been accepted. Furthermore, the Multan University was holding the Final Professional M. B., B. S. Annual Examination during April, 1983 and the petitioners, who belong to 1975-80 Session would now become even junior to the successful students of the Multan University belonging to 1976-81 Session; a half hearted attempt was also made to suggest that even the Syndicate could not fix the date of examination but that it was the entire University alone which could do so.
11. The last submission is obviously incorrect. Our attention was draw to Section 3, and Section 4 (c) and Section 26 (2) (bb) of the University o -the Punjab Act, 1973 to show that all organs of the University were not required to act together for such a matter. However, we feel that in view of the provisions of Section 32(1) (e), which is to the following effect :- "32 (1)-Subject to the provisions of this Act, and the Statutes, Regu--lations may be made for all or any of the following matters : ...
(a) ... ... ... ... ... ...
(b) ... ... ... ... ... ...
(c) ... ... ... ... ... ...
(d) ... ... ... ... ... ...
(e) conduct of examinations." and para. 3 of Chapter I of the Statues and Regulations for the Degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (M. B., B. S.) (Latest Scheme) Examination, which, inter alia, provides :- ---General Regulation,--An examination for the Degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery shall be held twice a year in Lahore and at such other places as may be fixed by the Syndicate, in the last week of May and in the 2nd week of September in the case of 1st Professional Examination (Parts 1 and II), in the 2nd week of May and 3rd week of September in the case of 2nd Professional Examination and in the last week of May and in the last week of September in the case of Final Professional Examination. The Syndicate may, however, in exceptional circumstances, fix some other date's."
12. (the underlining is ours) the Syndicate is clearly empowered to fix the dates for the holding of the examinations.
13. As for the other submission that the Multan University is holding 'the examination in April, 1983, the petitioners, who belong to the 1975-80 Session would become even junior to the successful students of the Multan University belonging to 1976-81 Session, which could be obviated if the University authorities had held two' examinations; one in April, 1983 as per original schedule and the second in July, 1983, the learned counsel for the University did not press the consideration of the law and order being disrupted, before us, but submitted that the petitioners had already appeared twice, if not at least once, in the M. B., B. S. Final Examinations that were held in 1982, but had failed to clear it and they hardly deserved much indulgence. Moreover, the Medical and Dental Council of Pakistan had decided that "the carry over system allowed in the past under the pressure of students community be stopped and no special supplementary examination be allowed in any; professional examination under any circumstances from the academic year of 1981." It further decided that "if any Medical College or University violates the above decision of the Council, such Medical College will be de-recognised and graduates of the University will not be issued registration by this Council." In view of this decision it was not possible to bold two examinations as suggested.
14. Mr. Shaukat A.I, in reply, submitted that this decision was not applicable to the students of the 1975- 80 Session and that even now two examinations could easily be held.
15. We, however, consider that the decision of postponement taken by the Syndicate of the Punjab University cannot be interfered with. Such a decision could not only be taken by it under the law but that it was, in fact, the proper authority to do so. The question as to the date on which an examination should beheld is a matter for the University authorities to decide and if they act within the framework of the law the Courts will not normally interfere with the exercise of its discretion. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the decision of the Syndicate fixing the 16th of July, 1983 as the new date for holding of the M. B., B. S. Examination.
16. We cannot, however, refrain from observing that the system of examination is in shambles and all normal expectation that any course taken up by a student shall be completed on time are never fulfilled. The case in hand is just one example of this unfortunate situation. The students who joined the vl6dical College in 1975, are even today, after 8 years, still in the process of appearing in the final examination, while students of 1976-81 session, whose final M. B., B. S. Examination, according to the Rules, should have been held in May, 1981, are violently protesting against the holding of the said examination even in April, 1983 i. e. Even after nearly two years of the date when it should have normally been held. Such agitations against the holding of the examination by the students community is not only causing irreparable damage to themselves but also to the entire community at large. It is high time for all the parties concerned with the subject of education: students, teachers, examiners and the Universities to ponder over this grave national problem with a view to obviating the colossal waste of the precious time of our youth which occurs in not holding examinations on time and when at long last some date is finally fixed for them, it becomes necessary or expedient to again postpone them for one reason or another, The over all conclusion is that this petition shall stand dismissed with the above observations.