1. ' The two petitioners are the students of the Nishtar Medical College, Multan. They cleared their Third Professional in the Annual examination of 1975. Their result was declared on the 10th of December, 1975, whereafter they were permitted to join the final year class of the M. B., B. S. The dispute between them and the University authorities arose when they sought to appear in the Supplementary Examination of 1975 for passing the final year.. The said Supplementary Examination commenced on the 28th of November 1976. It is obviously delayed inordinately on account of reasons beyond the control of the University authorities. Under the rules a student is not eligible to take the final year examination "until he has passed one year previously the Third Professional M. B., B. S. Examination". The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the result of their Third Professional Examination having been declared on the 10th of December 1975 and the next final year examination having commenced on the 28th of December 1976 i. e.
2. More than a year later the petitioners were eligible to appear in that examination. The case of the University, however, is that the examination held in December 1976 was not the next annual examination but only the Supplementary Examination of 1975. Therefore, the petitioners were not eligible. According to the University authorities the earliest final year examination that the petitioners could take was the annual of 1976 which was held long after the Supplementary Examination that had commenced in December 1976.
3. ' It must be mentioned here that the petitioners were provisionally allowed to take the examination in December 1976 under orders of this Court and they also appeared in the next annual examination on their own by way of abundant caution. The declaration of their results in these two examinations will depend upon the fate of this writ petition.
4. ' It is thus clear that the only question for consideration is whether the respondent's interpretation of the relevant rule is correct or the petitioners.
5. ' The learned counsel for the petitioners concedes that if per chance the examination in question had been scheduled say, for the 1st of December 1976 instead of 28th of December 1976, his clients would not be eligible to appear in that examination. It is thus evident that if we go by the interpretation of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the eligibility of a candidate would become a matter of chance. On the other hand the interpretation of the University authorities lends complete certainty to the rule. Therefore, it is the latter that should be preferred. The rule that the examination should be open to any student who has passed one year previously the Third Professional M. B. B. S. Examination only means that if a student has passed his Third Professional in the annual examination of a certain year he will be eligible at the earliest to take the final year examination in the annual of the next succeeding year. Similarly if he has passed the Third Professional in the Supplementary Examination of a certain year than he cannot appear in the final year examination earlier than the next Supplementary Examination. In view of this interpretation the writ petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed.
6. ' In the circumstances of the case, however, the parties are left to bear their own costs.