1. ' WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, C.J.---Shahid Ali and Muhammad Irfan Iqbal are the petitioners in these two connected petitions. Both of them were admitted to the M.B.,B.S. Course of the Karachi Medical and Dental College (KMDC) for the 1993-94 session. The first professional M.B.,B.S. Examination for the session was held in February 1996. Shahid Ali according to his version, cleared the theory part of the three major subjects but failed in viva. The second chance was the supplementary examination held in August 1996, where Shahid Ali again failed to qualify the viva in physiology, getting 26 out of 200 marks. He availed the third opportunity in the paper of Physiology in the annual examination held in January 1997. Again he cleared the theory part but was unsuccessful getting 65 out of 200 marks in the practicals. Shahid Ali's fourth chance was in August 1997, through the relevant supplementary examination, but he again plucked in the physiology practical getting 40 out of 200 marks. The position of Muhammad Irfan Iqbal is more or less similar. He says that, while he was unwell in the January 1996, examination, he attempted all the papers but failed to make it in most of the subjects. In the supplementary of August 1996, Muhammad Irfan Iqbal cleared the theory part of Physiology and practical part of Anatomy but did not make the rest of each paper and was declared failed. He is stated to have lost the third chance because of serious sickness, but concedes that he appeared in the theory parts of Anatomy and Physiology though without success. As regards the final opportunity in the August 1997, Supplementary Examination, it is said that he is a nervous student and victim of circumstances which included domestic problems with the result that he failed to qualify in the practicals of Anatomy and Physiology. Both the candidates thereafter made representations but predictably without success. They have approached this Court challenging the vires of Note (ii) of Regulation 4(1) of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Regulations framed under section 33(2) of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962, on the grounds of being unjust, discriminatory, unreasonable, beyond the scope of authority and in derogation of the Fundamental Rights. For the sake of convenience, section 33(2) and Note
(ii) of Regulation 4(1) are reproduced hereinbelow: "33. Power to make Regulations.---(1) ...........................
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) the Council shall make Regulations which may provide for;
(a) Prescribing a uniform minimum standard of courses of training for obtaining graduate and post-graduate medical and dental qualifications to be included or included respectively in the First, Third and Fifth Schedules;
(b) Prescribing minimum requirements for the content and duration of 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 examinations and other requirements to be satisfied for securing recognition of medical and dental qualifications under the Ordinance;
(f) prescribing the qualifications and experience required of examiners for professional examinations in medicine and dentistry antecedent to the granting of recognised medical qualifications;
(g) registration of medical and or dental students at any medical or dental college or school or any university and the fees payable in respect of such registration."
2. Note (ii): Any student who fails to clear First Professional M.B., B.S. Examination in four chances availed or unavailed shall cease to be eligible for further medical/dental education in Pakistan."
3. ' The reproduced Note (ii) of Regulation 4(1) of the Regulations for the degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) or equivalent thereof has frequently come up for judicial scrutiny. Some of the reported dicta include Asim Siddique v. Principal A.M. College, PLD 1992 Peshawar 52, Zubair Ishtiaq Qureshi v. The Chairman of Academic Council and Principal Sindh Medical College, 1993 CLC 1675, a decision of this Court, and Akhtar Ali Javed v. Principal, Quaid-i- Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur, 1994 SCMR 532. The Peshawar and Karachi decisions lay down that the provision has to be beneficially construed and if a deserving case for being relieved of the rigours of the rule is made out by an affectee student, the given matter may require due scrutiny and examination at the appropriate level. In Akhtar Ali Javed's case, the Supreme Court found an equivalent provision in the prospectus of the Quaid-i-Azam Medical College Bahawalpur, not to impinge upon the right of a student to pursue the course of study in a medical institution and observed that, on the contrary the rule assured the arrest of falling standards in education. On our part, in some cases and particularly the unreported cases of Miss Shaheen Akhtar v. The Principal, Dow Medical College and Amema Naeem Sharwani v. The Principal Sindh Medical College, Civil Petitions Nos. D-75-76 of 1998, we, while interpreting the preclusion in the rule, came to the conclusion that to qualify for relief and correspondingly for relaxation of the rule, a genuine case, promptly made-out, showing the existence of factors beyond the control of the affectee, has invariably to be made-out. In other words, there was no room for after-thoughts or conjured upon belated pleas to qualify for relief either at the level of the college or university authorities or of the Court. Applying such dicta, we find that none of the petitioners here laid any foundation whatsoever for condonation in his case. The petitions themselves were not filed earlier than 9-1- 1998 when the last result was probably declared in October 1997, such a case requiring, as already said, all promptitude. Since, perhaps, the petitioners were aware of the frailty of their cases, they have adopted the other course for challenging the vires of the regulation itself.
4. ' Emphasis as regards purported unreasonableness and alleged artificial classification, irreconcilable with rationality or justice, has been laid largely on pleas that such a disqualification as is postulated in the applicable clause of the regulation is peculiar to the first professional examination and no similar check is envisaged for subsequent years of the study. We have been fully convinced that no violation of Fundamental Rights including unequal treatment or discrimination is involved in the application of the rule. On the contrary, the provision is designed to check and safeguard at the earliest all such entrants in Medical Institutions as do not have the aptitude or the competence to continue the course of study to its conclusion. The first such hurdle is provided at the admission stage itself when students are required to be possessed of a minimum percentage of marks to secure entry and there as well an open competition on merit is to take place, the last successful candidate often averaging much higher than the minimum qualifying requirement. The second check occurs at the level of the First Professional M.B., B.S. Examination which takes place after two years of internment. There, as well, no less than four attempts are provided and what is more such attempts, in relation to a failed student, do not involve appearance in all the subjects or papers but merely in those in which the student has failed to make the grades. Normally, if the affectee does not clear even after such a number of attempts, in spite of being one of the better qualified from amongst those who were initially seeking admittance, there must be something wrong somewhere and seriously at that. In our opinion, once the first professional examination is cleared, there remains no further need for any additional constraint and no in-equality occurs on account of non-making of such a provision. Neither, therefore, on grounds of reasonableness nor of discrimination or unequal treatment the rule in question can be found to offend. It does not violate any of the Fundamental Rights or other constitutional provision and more particularly Articles 2A, 4, 8 and 25 on which some emphasis was laid by Mr. Shamsuddin Khalid Ahmed, the petitioners' learned counsel. As to competence section 33(2)(c) of the Ordinance is the answer.
5. ' These were the reasons on account of which through a short order, dated 26-2-1998 we had dismissed the above petitions.