' GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, C. J.-The petitioner, who is the owner and promoter of a privately- managed Educational Institution has filed this petition to challenge rules 6 (1) (vi) and (vii) of the Regulations for Intermediate Examination, framed for the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, on the ground that they are repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. It is argued that as to receive education, is the birth right of every Muslim, any one hindering or interfering with the same, is contravening the Injunctions of Islam.
2. The above-said Rules provide that a student appearing in the Intermediate Examination must have performed, in a laboratory, approved! By the Board, at least two-third of the total number of practical's prescribed for a subject of study, a component of which comprises practical work. Sub- rule (vii) further lays down that private candidates are not eligible to appear in pre-engineering and pre-medical groups except late college students only.
3. After hearing the learned counsel we find nothing un-Islamic in these Rules. The wisdom of the Rules appears to be that the students, who are appearing in such examination must have acquired the necessary practical knowledge and experience in a laboratory, which contains all the equipment necessary for such knowledge. Consequently, if a person has not conducted that practical work in an approved laboratory he should not be allowed in the interest of public to appear in such subjects, which deal with the human life and property. The Rules are thus based on the public good' and as there is no discrimination whatever they cannot be said to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam.
4. The learned counsel admits that even some of the private school laboratories have been approved by the respondent Board and that the students of those schools are being admitted in the examination. If that be so, then the respondent is not only acting in the interest of the public but is also showing no prejudice or discrimination. The Rules are thus made bona fide and no exception need be taken.
5. After arguing his case, at length before interval, the learned counsel prayed for more time to press some other point. We, therefore, allowed him to come after interval to argue. The case has been called a number of times but neither he nor his client is available. May be they did not get any other point to press. This petition, as discussed above, has no merit and is dismissed.