Mst. FARHANA RIAZ vs GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Sindh High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging the validity of Rule 8 of the Prospectus for admission to M.B.,B.S. classes. The petitioner, a student at Sindh Medical College, had failed to pass the First Professional M.B.,B.S. examination after exhausting four attempts, as permitted by the relevant regulations based on Pakistan Medical and Dental Council rules. The core legal question was whether the student could challenge the validity of the rule limiting examination attempts and whether she was entitled to further opportunities. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly dismissed the petition, affirming that the regulations governing examination attempts are intra vires the Constitution and necessary for maintaining high standards of medical education. The Court emphasized that no indefinite license can be granted to students in professional courses to clear examinations, as this would adversely affect educational standards. Leave to appeal was refused, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any force majeure or unavoidable circumstances justifying an exception to the four-attempt rule.
- Are rules in a medical college prospectus limiting the number of attempts to pass professional examinations intra vires the Constitution?
- Can a student claim an indefinite right to continue attempting professional examinations after exhausting the prescribed number of chances?
- Under what circumstances might a court grant relief to a student who has failed to qualify in the prescribed number of examination attempts?
- Rule 8, Chapter II, Prospectus for admission to M.B.,B.S. Classes 1994-95
ORDER
' RANA BHAGWAN DAS, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order dated 10-5-2000/11-5- 2000 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Sindh High Court comprising Chief Justice and another Judge dismissing Constitutional petition of the petitioner.
2. It is admitted that the petitioner, a student of First Professional M.B.,B.S. In Sindh Medical College, Karachi, had failed to clear the First Professional Examination of M.B.,B.S. In spite of availing four chances as regulated by Rule 8 of Chapter II of the Prospectus for admission to M.B.,B.S. Classes for the year 1994-95 based on Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Rules. On petitioner's own showing in paragraph 3 of the memorandum of petition for leave to appeal, she appeared in First Professional M.B.,B.S. Supplementary Examination, 1998, Annual Examination, 1999, Supplementary Examination, 1999 and could not qualify the examination even in fourth attempt. In consequence of the last attempt she cleared the subjects of Islamic Studies, Pakistan Studies and BioChemistry but could not clear the subjects of Anatomy and Physiology in which she failed. In her petition before the High Court she attempted to impugn the vires of Rule 8 (supra) but the learned High Court discarded the submission on the basis of a Division Bench judgment in Mst. Fabiha Parveen v.
People's Medical College for Girls PLD 1999 Karachi 394 authored by one of us (Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, J.), hence this petition for leave to appeal..
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same arguments as were advanced before the learned High Court. It was made clear to him that there is consistent view of this Court that the provisions of the Prospectus founded on the rules and regulations framed by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council for maintaining high standard of medical education in the country were declared to be intra vires the Constitution. Learned counsel nevertheless attempted to make a deviation by suggesting that leave to appeal may be granted for re-consideration of the question by a Larger Bench.
4. We are not inclined to accept the suggestion as the question involved in this case seems to have been set at rest in a number of petitions before this Court and leave to appeal was granted only in such cases where a particular student could not qualify the examination in four attempts on account of force majeure or did not avail of the fourth opportunity for extremely unavoidable circumstances beyond his power and control. Since the petitioner failed to qualify the examination in four attempts, learned High Court did not commit any error of law by observing that after availing of four chances as provided in the rule, she must vacate the seat for other deserving candidate. We are of the view that no indefinite licence can be granted to a student of a Professional course of studies to clear the same which will adversely affect ever declining standard of education in the country.
5. No other ground was urged in support of the petition which is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal is, thus, refused.