AKHTAR ALI JAVED Versus PRINCIPAL, QUAIDIAZAM MEDICAL COLLEGE, BAHAWALPUR

SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The above appeal with leave of this Court is filed by the appellant to call in question the order of Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 24-11-1991, whereby Constitution petition filed by the appellant to challenge the order of Principal, Quaid-e-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur, dated 5-6-1991 declaring him as not eligible to continue his studies in the Medical College and striking off his name from the College Roll, was upheld and the Constitution petition was dismissed. Leave was granted in the case to consider the following contentions of the appellant:--

The appellant, accordingly, contended that the appellants in the connected cases having been allowed to appear in the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination without limitation of chances, the same criteria should also be applied to the case of the appellant, as otherwise it will amount to discrimination. After hearing the appellant and Mr. SA. Rehman, Advocate, who voluntarily appeared to argue the case and to whom we granted permission, as well as the learned counsel for the respondent, we are of the view that no case for interference with the order of High Court is made out.

The appellant was admitted to First Year M.B.,B.S. Classes in Quaide-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur, during the academic year 1986-87 on 13-12-1987. It is not disputed that the prospectus issued by the Quaid-e-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur, for the academic year 1986-87 contained a provision which provided that if a student failed to clear the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination in four available chances whether availed or not, shall be expelled from the College. The appellant did not avail the first chance to appear in the first M.B.,B.S. Professional Annual examination held in December 1989. He, however, appeared in the First Professional Supplementary Examination, 1989, held in March 1990 but could not clear it as he failed in Anatomy and Physiology. He made the second attempt by appearing in the First Professional Annual Examination, 1990 held in November 1990 but he again failed in both the subjects namely, Anatomy and Physiology. He once again appeared in the Supplementary Examination held in March 1991 but again failed in Anatomy. It is, therefore, quite clear that he did not avail the first chance to appear in the examination held in 1989, and his subsequent three attempts to clear the First Professional Examination were also unsuccessful. The appellant was allowed another chance under the order of this Court to appear in the first professional Supplementary Examination 1992 held in December 1992 but once again he failed in Anatomy. The appellant, therefore, in spite of availing four chances to clear the first Professional M.B.B.S. Examination remained unsuccessful. The relevant rule under which a student of M.B.,B.S. Who fails to qualify/clear the First Professional Examination, after making four attempts, is not entitled to continue his studies any further, was issued by the College Authorities on 17-10-1987, and it reads as follows:--

3(a) Any student who fails to clear the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination in four chances offered by the University availed or unavailed shall cease to be eligible for further Medical/Dental education in Pakistan. This will be effective from the First Year admission of 1986-87.

(I)) The student admitted before 1986-87 will have to clear First Professional M.B.,B.S./B.D.S. Examination within four years from the date of their admission irrespective of the number of chances they can avail whether four or more."

The above rule being the part of the prospectus for the academic year 1986-87, under which the appellant was admitted to M.B.,B.S. Classes, his right to continue his studies was governed by that rule. The appellant having availed four clear chances to clear his First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination, and failed, could not claim any right to continue his studies in view of the abovementioned rule. The learned counsel for the appellant is unable to show that the above- quoted rule contravened or came in conflict with any provision of law made applicable to the respondent's institution. The learned counsel for the appellant is also unable to demonstrate that the above-quoted rule contravened any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The right to seek admission in an educational institution and to continue studies therein is always subject to the rules of discipline prescribed by the institution and therefore, a student who intends to pursue his studies in the institution is bound by such rules. The above- quoted rule, in our view, does not infringe upon the right of a student to pursue his studies in the Medical College. On the contrary it ensures arrest of falling standards of education in such institutions. We therefore, do not find any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the aforesaid rule. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that as in the above referred decided cases of University of Punjab, the appellants were allowed to appear in the examination without any limitation of chances, the appellant should also be allowed the same concession as otherwise it would amount to discrimination. We called for the files of the connected appeals decided on 10- 11-1993 and found that in the connected cases the Notification applying the above rule was issued on 5-11-1988 while the appellants in these cases were admitted in the College on 1-10-1988, namely about a month before the issuance of Notification adopting the above restrictive rule. It was in these circumstances that a statement was made before this Court, by the counsel appearing for the Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Punjab that the above rule will not be applied to the cases of the appellants, as apparently the date on which appellants in the above decided cases were admitted to the College, the aforesaid rule was not enforced by the University. In the present case, the appellant has already been allowed five chances out of which he did not avail one, while the last chance was availed by the appellant under the orders of this Court. In spite of four attempts he failed to qualify the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination and as such he is not entitled to ask for a further chance to pass the examination. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.