UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH SCIENCES, LAHORE and others vs Sheikh NASIR
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that directed the University of the Health Sciences to award five grace marks to a medical student in his First Professional MBBS examination, based on an Office Order issued by the Vice-Chancellor. The core legal question was whether the Vice-Chancellor possessed the statutory authority to unilaterally grant grace marks in contravention of established University Regulations, and whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretionary writ jurisdiction in this matter. The Supreme Court held that the Vice-Chancellor lacked the competence to override the University's controlling regulations regarding examination standards. The Court emphasized that the Vice-Chancellor cannot exercise the powers of the Syndicate to benevolently grant grace marks, as such actions undermine professional educational standards. The Court further observed that the culture of seeking grace marks is contrary to principles of good governance, particularly in medical education where professional competence is vital for public health. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that the unauthorized Office Order conferred no legal right to the relief sought.
- Does a University Vice-Chancellor have the statutory authority to unilaterally grant grace marks in violation of the University's controlling regulations?
- Can a High Court exercise its equitable writ jurisdiction to enforce an administrative order that contradicts established academic regulations?
- Is the award of grace marks to failed medical students consistent with the principles of maintaining professional educational standards?
Rana Bhagwandas, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the Lahore High Court judgment dated 3.12.2004, allowing respondents' writ petition seeking following reliefs:-- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that writ may very kindly be issued and the Respondents Nos, 1 and 2 may very amiably be directed to award five grace marks to the petitioner in pursuance of Office Order dated 23.1.2004 issued by the Respondent No, 1.
It is further prayed that the Respondent No, 3 may very graciously be directed to declare the result of the petitioner after grant of five grace marks."
2. Respondent No, 1 was admitted to the First Professional MBBS Class at Rawalpindi Medical College, in the academic Session 2001-2002. He appeared in the First Professional MBBS Annual Examination, 2003, held in October 2003 and passed in Islamiat and Pakistan Studies.
Subsequently, he appeared in supplementary examination held in January 2004 and passed the subjects of Biochemistry and viva of Anatomy and Physiology. His earlier with petition for award of five extra grade marks in the failure subjects was disposed of by the Lahore High Court vide order dated 15.9.2004, with direction to Respondent No, 1 to approach the Vice-Chancellor of the University, with a written application. Accordingly, he approached the Vice-Chancellor reiterating his request for award of five grace marks in pursuance of office order dated 23.01.2004 issued by the Vice-Chancellor himself. The respondent being dissatisfied with the last order passed by the Vice-Chancellor, filed second writ petition before the Lahore High Court, seeking similar relief, which has been allowed vide judgment dated 3.12.2004, hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. It is inter-alia contended that the office order dated 23.1.2004, heavily been relied upon by the respondent in support of his writ petition was considered by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, in Writ Petition No, 5617 of 2005, decided on 20.4.2005 and the same has been struck down by the High Court with the following observations:-- "9. Office order dated 23.1.2004 and the judgment by the learned Single Judge in Chamber of this Court in Writ Petition No, 28962004 have no legal basis, as Vice-Chancellor could not confer 5 grace marks in each subject, in violation of the controlling Regulation of the Calander and thus, we feel overselves handicapped to contribute to this view that such grace marks should be given to the students in each failing subject. If the view canvassed by the petitioner is adopted, the result would be annulling the Regulations which is not the function of the Courts. In like circumstances, this Court took off its hands from interfering in executive orders, in the judgment in the case of Zahoor Ahmed Azhar vs. Islamia University, Bahawalpur through Vice-Chancellor and 4 others (PLD 1998 Lahore 324). Besides it, law is not settled about the proposition that the acts have to be done in the manner prescribed and in no other method. Office order dated 23.1.2004 was un- authorisedly issued, hence, the same did not confer any right on the petitioners to claim that the same treatment be met with them on the basis thereof. Judgment if needed in support of this principle of law, reference can be made to the case of Jalil Ahmad vs, Public Service Commission and another (1998 CLC 435)".
4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we entertain serious doubts whether the Vice- Chancellor of University has statutory powers under the statute of the University or any other law for the time being in force to grant grade marks in each subject and thereby deteriorate the quality of education which has already gone below standard. The Syndicate of a University might have certain discretion but the Vice-Chancellor alone, in our opinion, would not be competent to exercise all the powers of the Syndicate and benevolently grant grace marks to the failed candidates in theory as well as practical subjects. It is well settled that once a student fails to qualify First Professional .MBBS Examination and avails of three chances he would not be entitled to promotion to the Second Professional MBBS Class. Even otherwise, this culture of seeking award of grace marks is against the settled principles of good governance and improving the higher standards of professional education more particularly medical education, because the doctors are required to deal with precious human lives. Medical practitioners are expected to be fully equipped with professional skill, knowledge and expertise in the medical discipline to practice the profession, to deal with the patients and looking after their health and hygiene. On no principle or authority, therefore, in our view, the impugned judgment of the High Court can be sustained. To our mind, the High Court was not bound to exercise its writ jurisdiction which is always equitable and discretionary in favour of the respondent in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
5. For the aforesaid facts, circumstances and reasons, we convert this petition into appeal and on acceptance, set aside impugned judgment of the High Court dated 03.12.2004, with no order as to costs.