Petitioners Wan Abdullah and Wan Muhammad Fadli are Malaysian nationals, who have come to Pakistan for purpose of education. They were admitted in M.B.`,B.S. Course in Dow Medical College, Karachi in the year 1990-91 on foreign students quota. In the year 1993 the petitioners appeared in their- first examination viz. The First Professional M.B.,B.S. Annual Examination but failed. Thereafter, they had to appear again in the scheduled examination, but they failed to appear in that examination, thus they availed two chances. Thereafter, they again appeared in the 1st Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination for 3rd and 4th time but both the times they failed. As a result, the Principal of the College informed them that they were not entitled to continue their further studies on account of rule of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council under which a person having availed four chances to pass First Professional M,B.,B.S. Examination cannot lie allowed to continue his studies.
2. The petitioners after preferring representation to the respondents, of which no reply was received by them, have filed the present petition in which they have assailed the rule of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council to the effect that they were not entitled to continue their studies, after availing four chances. .
3. It was contended that the rule was against the provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and that the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council had no authority, jurisdiction and power to put such restrictions on the education being acquired by the petitioner in the Medical College affiliated to the University of Karachi. The petitioners, therefore, sought the relief that the order passed by the Principal, Dow Medical College;. Be declared illegal, and the respondents be directed to allow them to continue their studies and appear in the examination of 1st Professional M.B.,B.S.
4. In the comments filed by the Principal, Dow Medical College, he stated that the petitioners had availed 4 chances to pass 1st Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination after which their names were removed from the rolls of the College in accordance with the P.M.D.C. Rules, with which the petitioners as well as the respondents .Were bound. The rule of the P.M.D.C. Is reproduced as under:---- "Any student who fails to clear First Professional M.B.,B.S./B.D.S. Examination in four chances availed or unavailed, after becoming eligible for the examination, shall cease to be eligible for further medical/dental education in Pakistan."
5. The comments also further show that out of four chances available to the petitioners for passing the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination, they had actually availed three. And had failed on fourth occasion, as the petitioners did not submit their examination forms and did not appear in the examination. Thus; the fourth chance will be considered as "unavailed" by the petitioners, which is also covered by the rules.
6. The petitioners while making their representation to the Karachi University had said in their representations, inter alia, as under:-- "We had sat for our fresh first professional examination in 1993, but regrettably failed. Afterwards, we took repeat examinations (which comprise both the supplementary and annual papers) third time in 1993-94. Unfortunately, we had failed to clear all the examination required in order to qualify to the third year classes."
7. The prospectus, under which the petitioners applied for admission, expressly contained caution as under:-- "Any student, who fails to clear First Professional .M.B.,B.S./B.D.S. Examination in four chances availed or unavailed cease to be eligible for further medical/dental education in Pakistan."
8. While arguing his case Mr. Azliar A.I Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the petitioner, did not advance any argument on the basis of which the rule could be struck down, but mainly disputed the interpretation of the rule saying that in case where the student is prevented by unavoidable circumstances to appear in the examination any time during the available four attempts, he may not be treated having come within the mischief of the word "availed or unavailed" appearing in the rule. Learned counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Zubair Ishtiaq Qureshi v.
Chairman of Academic Council and Principal, Sindh Medical College, Karachi (1993 CLC 1675). This decision was made after relying on the case of Asim Siddiq v. Principal, A.M. College (PLD 1992 Peshawar 52). In these reported cases, the students had pleaded their sickness due to which they had failed to appear in the examination and it was held that the unavoidable circumstances thus pleaded, required scrutiny and verification and if confirmed, could be valid ground for holding the failure to avail the chance in question, beyond the control of the student. The relief was granted in these cases since these pleadings were not controverted by the respondents in the reported cases.
One last chance was allowed to the students to appear in the examination.
9. However, the facts in this case do not warrant such disability on the part of the petitioners to appear in the examination. Both the petitioners were living in Karachi for the purpose of education and they had come from Malaysia. It was contended by the petitioners that they had gone to Malaysia and could not reach Pakistan due to sudden illness of the mother of the petitioner No.2, who was aunt of petitioner No. l and hence both of them could not avail one of the four chances.
Neither the dates of the departure of the petitioner from Karachi were pleaded nor any proof of their actual departure in the shape of any document was shown. The nature of the sickness of the mother of the petitioner was also not pleaded. Above all, had the allegation of sickness of the mother of the petitioner been genuine, the petitioners being students and aware of the examination dates would have intimated the College Authorities by some letter or telegram.
Nothing of that sort has been pleaded before us or the respondent during their representations.
We, therefore, have come to the conclusion that the petitioners are unable to get the help from the above-cited cases as the factual position in the case of the petitioner-is much different.
10. In the case of Akhtar A.I Javed v. Principal, Quaid-e-Azam College Bahawalpur (1994 SCMR 532) their lordships of the Supreme Court have he' that having availed four chances to pass the First Professional M.B.B.S Examination the petitioner was not entitled to further chance. Under these circumstances, we have come to the conclusion that the petitioners have not been able to show that the respondents have violated any provisions of rules or law, or any provision of the constitution in passing the impugned order. We, therefore, find ourselves unable to consider the case of the petitioners worth admission. Consequently, the petition is dismissed in limine.
Miscellaneous applications are also, therefore, dismissed.