' This order is intended to dispose of three Writ Petitions bearing Nos.2633 of 2003. 2565 of 2003 and 4354 of 2003, preferred on behalf of Ayesha Haider, Mirza Sajid Amin and Muhammad Mujahid Nawab, students of Nishtar Medical College, Multan, who appeared in the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Part-I, 1st Annual Examination, 2002.
2. Ayesha Haider-petitioner failed in the subject of Physiology and Bio-Chemistry. She had secured 47 marks in the subject of Physiology. She was allowed three grace marks and was considered to have passed in the subject of Physiology. She, therefore, appeared again in the 2nd Annual Examination, 2002 in the subject of Bio-Chemistry, alone. This time, she secured 49 marks. On her application, rechecking of her paper was carried out but the result remained the same.
3. Mirza Sajid Amin-petitioner failed in two subjects Anatomy/Histology and Bio-Chemistry. He had secured 49/100 marks in Bio-Chemistry. He was allowed one grace mark and declared to have passed in the said subject. He appeared again in the subject of Anatomy/Histology in the 2nd Annual Examination, 2002 and secured 48/100 marks in theory and 52/100 in practical. He was, therefore, declared to have failed by a margin of, two marks.
4. Muhammad Mujahid Nawab failed in three subjects i.e, Anatomy/Histology, Bio-Chemistry and Physiology. He had secured 98/200 marks in Physiology, therefore, he was declared successful in this subject by allowing him two grace marks. He appeared again in the subjects of Anatomy/Histology and Bio-Chemistry. He secured 55/100 marks in Bio-Chemistry but failed in the subject of Anatomy/Histology by one mark.
5. The petitioner's case is that they were entitled to five grace marks in total. Ayesha Haider had availed the concession of three grace marks in the subject of Physiology leaving two grace marks to her credit. Similarly, four marks were left to the credit of Mirza Sajid Amin and three marks to the credit of Muhammad Mujahid Nawab-petitioner. It is submitted that these remaining grace marks should have been allowed to the petitioners while tabulating the result of the 2nd Annual Examination, 2002.
6. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the 2nd Annual Examination, 2002 is, in fact, in continuation of the 1st Annual Examination, as such, the petitioners cannot be denied the concession of remaining grace marks simply because it was their second attempt. This concession, extended by the Syndicate of the University, according to the petitioners, was not without any wisdom. On the one hand, the fallacies of the marking of the papers were in the mind and on the other hand the hardships, which are faced by the students due to unavoidable circumstances were in view and that such concession should not be allowed to be taken away by giving strict and narrow interpretation of the Rules and Regulations. Lastly, he argued that the Courts as well as the University is expected to exercise parental jurisdiction as has been exercised by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Ammara Hasnain v. Vice-Chancellor, Bahauddin Zakaria University and another (Civil Petition No,842 of 2003).
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the concession of five grace marks finds its origin in the Calendar of the University of the Punjab, Part-X, which relates to the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry. The relevant Regulation may be advantageously reproduced as under:-- "Provided that a candidate shall be deemed to have passed if he a fails in one subject Theor Oral and Practical Clinical and aggregate) by (a margin of five marks) (b) fails in more than one subject by a margin which can be made up by distribution of five marks over the subject/papers in which he fails, when he takes the examination either in all the subjects at one time or having appeared and failed in a part of the examination, reappears in the subject/s in which he had not passed. Provided further that he will be granted this concession only once in this examination.".
8. This concession was taken away through Notification, dated 27-9-2000 but the Syndicate of the Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, decided to restore it in its meeting, held on 14-4-2002, as per Notification No,Acad/B0S-Medicine/1059, dated 14-5-2002. This notification may be reproduced as under:-- ' "In partial modification of this office Notification No,Acad./BOS/Med/1992, dated 27-9-2000, the Syndicate in its 1/2002 meeting held on 14-4-2002, vide C .W . Item No,5, approved the recommendations of the Board of Studies in Medicine and allowed to restore the previous facility of awarding 5 grace marks to the candidates appearing in various Professional M.B.,B.S. Examinations w.e.f, 2nd Annual, 2001 examination and onward.
' Moreover, 5 grace marks in toto may be given in one or more failing paper/s in all the Professional M.B.,B.S. Examinations from 2nd Annual, 2001 Examination and onward.
' The students of 1st Professional M.B.,B.S. Part-I 2nd Annual 2001 and Second Professional M.B.,B.S. 2nd Annual 2001 Examinations are also allowed to get the benefit of five grace marks."
' Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the word "onward" appearing in the notification does not enlarge the scope of the concession and it simply specifies the time of restoration of the concession.
10. I have considered the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners failed in the 2nd Annual Examination, 2002 in one subject each. Admittedly, Ayesha Haider had availed the concession of three grace marks in Physiology. Mirza Sajid Amin had availed the concession of one grace mark in Biochemistry and Muhammad Mujahid Nawab had availed 2 grace marks in the subject of Physiology. In this way, the petitioners have not availed the full concession allowed to them under the law.
11. Now, the only question, which requires determination is, whether the petitioner can be allowed the concession of remaining grace marks in the 2nd Annual Examination? Literally, the answer would be in the negative in view of the proviso contained in the Regulation, reproduced above. The framers of the law did allow this concession but being fully aware of all its implications a condition in the form of proviso was imposed in an unequivocal words, so that concession may not be interpreted liberally. If the Legislature intended to give concession, it also intended to restrict and limits its application. The Courts are expected to interpret the concession in a literal and beneficial manner but when the law puts certain limitations in clear and unambiguous way, the Courts are not expected to travel beyond the prescribed limitations. The concession allowed under the Statute was certainly not without wisdom. Similarly, the condition, which in this case would be considered as a prohibition, would also not be considered without wisdom. The power of the Courts to interpret the law is also not unfettered. Therefore, in view of the limitation put on the concession, the petitioners could be granted the concession only once, which they have availed in the 1st Annual Examination, 2002. This Court, in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, would refrain from declaring the petitioners to have passed the 2nd Annual Examination, 2002.
' Before parting with this order, I would like to observe that there is no cavil with the proposition that this Court in such-like matter has to exercise parental jurisdiction. In my view, the same parental jurisdiction can be exercised by the University. The petitioners, in this case, have appeared twice in the Part-I of the 1st Professional Examination. They have failed by a margin of one or two marks in each subject. They have also taken the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Part-II examination at their own risk but under the direction of this Court. Admittedly, they have not availed the entire concession because of the restriction contained in the Regulation. The harshness of the statutes, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, can be removed by the framers of the law. The Syndicate and the Academic Council have ample powers under section 27(xi) and section 31 of the University of Health Sciences, Lahore, Ordinance, 2Q02, to relax the rules in the case of petitioners in the exercise of parental jurisdiction in order to remove the hardships to which not only the petitioners but their parents would also be exposed. It is hoped that the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Health Sciences, Lahore, would place the representations of the petitioners before the appropriate authority for sympathetic consideration. This petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.