MUNAZA HABIB and others vs THE VICE-CHANCELLOR and others

ORDER

' MANZOOR HUSSA1N SIAL. J.---The petitioners in these petitions seek leave to appeal from the judgment dated 28-4-1994, of the Lahore High Court, whereby the writ petitions filed by them were dismissed.

2. The petitioners are students of First Professional M.B.,B.S. Class. On 1-10-1989, they were admitted to these studies, for the academic session 1989-90. They were offered by the University of the Punjab (thereafter referred to as the University) four chances to qualify the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination but unfortunately could not qualify the examination.

3. The Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (hereinafter referred to as the Council),. Constituted under Medical Council Ordinance, is empowered to prescribe qualifications and standard of proficiency require from the candidates for qualifying the examination. The Council vide its letter dated 20-3-1988, contend to the University that the students admitted in the M.B.,B.S. Class before 1986-87, shall clear First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination in four chances offered by the University whether availed or unavailed, failing which they would cease to be eligible for further Medical/Dental Education in Pakistan, This decision of the Council would take effect from 1986-87, academic session. The Council through another letter dated 16-5-1988, remanded the University Authorities for implementation of the aforementioned decision.

4. It appears that pursuant to the directive of the Council, the Board of Studies in Medicine held a meeting on 11-6-1986, wherein resolved to implement the decision of the Council. Incidentally in those days neither academic council nor the syndicate of the University was in session. The Vice- Chancellor of the University in the exercise of emergent powers available to him under section 15(3) of the University of Punjab Act, 1973, issued on 13-4-1992, Regulation to the following effect:-- "A candidate who fails to clear the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination in four chances availed or unveiled offered by the University, shall cease to be eligible for further Medical/Dental Education.

The Regulation shall be applicable to all the categories whether they are fresh or failed candidates."

' The Regulation shall be effective with effect from First Annual Examination of 1988."

' This Regulation was subsequently approved by the Academic Council as well as by the Syndicate of the University.

5. As the petitioners could not qualify the First Professional Examination despite the four chances offered to them by the University, they were not allowed to appear in the examination, challenged the aforesaid Regulation by filing Constitutional petitions in the High Court which were dismissed on 26-4-1994, as aforementioned. Hence these petitions for leave to appeal.

6. In support of these petitions learned counsel for petitioners contended that the Vice-Chancellor of the University had no jurisdiction to frame Regulation purportedly in exercise of the emergency powers under section 15(3) of the University of Punjab Act, 1973, without recommendation of the Academic Council and approval of the Syndicate. Learned counsel referred to section 32(2) of the University Act, which provides that the Regulation shall be prepared by the Academic Council and shall be submitted to the Syndicate, which may approve them or withhold approval or refer them back to the Academic Council for reconsideration." It was further submitted that there was no emergency of the kind, requiring the Vice-Chancellor to frame the Regulation detrimental to the interest of the petitioners. It was lastly argued that the subsequent approval accorded by the Academic Council and Syndicate cannot validate the Regulation retrospectively.

7. Ch. Farooq Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand stated that when the Regulation in question was issued by the respondent No,!, neither the Academic Council nor the Syndicate was in session. The Regulation was issued pursuant to the directive of the Council. It was also submitted that the petitioners were already offered four chances to cleared the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination and having failed to qualify the examination cannot claim as of right to avail more chances in violation of the provisions of the relevant Regulation. It was also stated that at the time of admission, the petitioners were notified through the college prospectus that if they failed to qualify the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination in four chances they would debar themselves from pursuing further Medical/Dental Education in Pakistan.

8. Undoubtedly section 14(3) of the University Act, confers upon the Vice-Chancellor, jurisdiction to take action in case of emergency in anticipation of the approval of the Syndicate. It is established from the documents on the file that neither the Academic Council nor the Syndicate of the University was available at the relevant time, when the Council pressed for implementation of the decision in respect of the 1st Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination the Vice-Chancellor, therefore, competently issued the Regulation. The Board of Studies in Medicine, the Academic Council and the Syndicate of the University confirmed and accorded necessary approval.

It is true, as not controverted by learned counsel for petitioners that as the time of petitioners' admission in the M.B.,B.S. Class the College Prospectus did contain an instruction for the information of the students that they were required to qualify First M.B.,B.S. Professional Examination in four chances, failing which they would cease to be eligible to pursue their studies in Medical/Dental Education in Pakistan. The petitioners were offered four chances to qualify the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination and having remained unsuccessful, cannot legally compel the University Authorities to provide them further chance.

9. In our view, the impugned order passed by the learned Judge in the Lahore High Court in exercise of his discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction suffers from no legal flaw so as to warrant interference in the matter. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and these petitions are dismissed being without merit.