Rayyan Shahid Malik vs Islamic Republic Of Pakistan Through Secretary etc.

Stereo. H C J D A 38 Judgment Sheet

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT

RAWALPINDI BENCH, RAWALPINDI

(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

Writ Petition No. 3516 of 2026

Rayyan Shahid Malik Versus The Islamic Republic of Pakistan etc.

JUDGMENT

Date of Hearing 16.10.2026 Petitioners by: Ch. Imran Hassan Ali, Advocate. Respondents No.2 & 3 by: Mr. Jahangir Jadoon, Advocate. Respondent No.4/UHS, Mr. Zubair Iqbal Jatria, Advocate. Lahore by:

The Federation of Pakistan Malik Zaheer Arshad, Assistant by: Attorney General.

Syed Ahsan Raza Kazmi, J. Through the instant constitutional petition and connected Writ Petition No.3663 of 2026, under Article 199(1)(a)(i) and (ii) and Article 199(1)(c) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has called in question letter No.Exam-150/2026/345 dated 10.09.2026, issued by the Registration Officer, Examinations Department, Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC), directing the universities conducting the Medical and Dental College Admission Test (MDCAT)-2026 to collect the question papers from candidates immediately after completion of the examination. The petitioner challenges the consequential refusal of the respondents to permit candidates to retain the question papers or to make the same available on the official website of the University of Health Sciences, Lahore (UHS). He seeks, inter alia, directions for publication of the question papers of all codes/paper IDs, provision of access to candidates' recorded responses/Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) data, and an effective opportunity to raise objections to the questions and answer key and to seek recounting or review of their answer sheets.

2.The controversy arises from MDCAT-2026 conducted for the province of Punjab on 20.09.2026. The petitioner appeared in the examination under Roll No. 4057109 at Room No. G-12, University Institute of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, where he was assigned question paper Code C. According to the petitioner, unlike the practice followed in previous years, the candidates were required to surrender their question papers along with their answer sheets after completion of the examination. Although the official answer key was subsequently uploaded on the UHS website, the question paper itself was not made available to the candidates for continued reference.

3.The petitioner maintains that the absence of access to the question paper materially impairs the ability of candidates to identify disputed questions, scrutinize the answer key and formulate meaningful objections within the prescribed period. The grievance, therefore, is not merely against the collection of the physical question papers; it concerns the practical effectiveness of the objection and review mechanisms in the absence of access to the examination material against which the candidates are expected to raise their objections.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the computerized process of checking and marking answer sheets must be accompanied by adequate safeguards to ensure transparency and correctness. He contends that the previous practice of permitting candidates to retain the question papers was discontinued for MDCAT-2026 without any adequately explained justification or corresponding amendment to the relevant guide issued by UHS. He further submits that the limited period during which the question paper was reportedly available was insufficient for meaningful scrutiny, particularly when the examination comprised 180 questions. According to learned counsel, requiring candidates to reconstruct the paper from memory renders the objection mechanism unduly difficult to exercise in practice.

5.Learned counsel further refers to the guide issued by UHS, which, according to him, contained an instruction permitting candidates to take the question paper with them. He also relies upon the judgment rendered by the Islamabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 2826 of 2024, concerning transparency in the examination process. He distinguishes the examination systems of the United States, the United Kingdom and New Zealand from that prevailing in Pakistan, and relies upon the practice stated to be followed in India, where candidates are permitted to retain question papers. His central submission is that whatever examination-security arrangements the competent authorities may adopt, the candidates must retain a meaningful opportunity to examine the questions and challenge any error affecting the evaluation of their performance.

6.Conversely, learned counsel appearing on behalf of UHS raises a preliminary objection regarding maintainability, contending that the petitioner ought to have approached the concerned authorities for redressal of his grievance before invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. He acknowledges that the guide issued by UHS contained an indication permitting candidates to take the question papers with them, but submits that no subsequent communication expressly prohibiting them from doing so was issued by the University. Upon being confronted with the question whether the relevant guide or policy had been amended after receipt of the PMDC letter, learned counsel candidly concedes that no subsequent communication had been issued by UHS. He further acknowledges that the practice in previous years was to deliver the question papers to candidates and that the same was discontinued in conformity with the impugned letter.

7.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of PMDC submits that the impugned direction was issued to prevent malpractices allegedly associated with private academies and to safeguard the integrity and confidentiality of the question bank. He distinguishes the judgment relied upon by the petitioner on the ground that the controversy in those proceedings concerned allegations regarding the inclusion of questions outside the prescribed syllabus, whereas the present

W.P. No.3516-26 & 3663-26 4

petition relates to the non-publication of the question paper and the resulting difficulty in raising objections. According to him, the circumstances of the two cases are materially different.

8.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record.

9.The principal document relied upon by the respondents in support of the impugned arrangement is letter No. Exam- 150/2026/345 dated 10.09.2026, issued by the Registration Officer, Examinations Department, PMDC. For ready reference, the communication is reproduced in its entirety as follows:

PAKISTAN MEDICAL & DENTAL COUNCIL

G-10/4, MAUVE AREA

ISLAMABAD

Tel: (92 51) 9190000 Letter No. Exam-150/2026/345 Dated: 10th September, 2026 The Vice-Chancellor (All) MDCAT conducting universities Islamabad, Lahore, Sukkur, Peshawar, Quetta.

Subject: Conduct of MDCAT-2026

Dear Sir / Madam,

All MDCAT conducting universities are advised to ensure collection of question papers from the candidates, immediately after completion of Test scheduled on 20th September, 2026. No paper shall be handed over to candidates, to ensure safe and smooth conduct of the examination process.

With due regards,

Registration Officer Examinations Department Pakistan Medical & Dental Council Copy to:

1.Secretary, Health Departments, (All provinces / regions) 2. PSO to Federal Minister, M/o NHSR&C Islamabad

3.SPS to Secretary M/o NHSR&C Islamabad

4.PS to President PM&DC

5.PS to Registrar PM&DC

10.A plain reading of the above communication reveals that the PMDC advised all universities conducting MDCAT to collect the question papers immediately after completion of the examination. The stated object was to ensure the “safe and smooth conduct of the examination process.” The letter does not, however, disclose any specific concern regarding depletion of the question bank, nor does it explain how permitting candidates to retain the question papers would compromise examination security, facilitate malpractice

W.P. No.3516-26 & 3663-26 5

or undermine the integrity of the evaluation process. The respondents have subsequently relied upon concerns relating to the preservation of the question bank; nevertheless, no such consideration is expressly articulated in the impugned communication.

11.The distinction is material. An administrative direction affecting a large number of candidates should disclose, at least in substance, the object sought to be achieved and the rational basis for the measure adopted, particularly where the measure departs from an established practice and affects the practical availability of a remedy. The expression “safe and smooth conduct of the examination process” identifies a general administrative objective, but does not, by itself, explain why collection of the question papers was necessary or why the same objective could not be achieved through a less restrictive arrangement that preserved candidates' access to the examination material. The concern is not that every administrative communication must contain an elaborate statement of reasons; rather, the measure must be capable of being justified by reference to a lawful purpose and a rational connection between that purpose and its consequences.

12.It is appropriate to address the objection regarding maintainability. The formulation of examination policy, preparation of question banks and adoption of appropriate security measures ordinarily fall within the domain of the competent academic and regulatory authorities. Courts do not ordinarily substitute their own preferences for the technical judgment of such authorities merely because another arrangement may appear more desirable. Judicial restraint, however, does not place administrative action beyond the reach of constitutional scrutiny. Where the exercise of public authority is challenged on the ground of illegality, arbitrariness, absence of lawful justification or disregard of applicable constitutional requirements, the Court retains jurisdiction to examine whether the impugned action falls within the limits prescribed by law.

13.Article 4 of the Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to be dealt with in accordance with law. Article 25 embodies the principle of equality before law and equal protection of law. These constitutional guarantees require public authorities to exercise their powers lawfully and without arbitrary discrimination. The principle of fairness in administrative action further requires that a procedure materially affecting the interests of candidates should not be rendered ineffective through an arrangement that lacks an adequately demonstrated justification. The precise application of these constitutional protections depends upon the nature of the action challenged and the rights and interests involved; they do not, by themselves, confer an unrestricted right to dictate the technical design of an examination.

W.P. No.3516-26 & 3663-26 6

14.The present petition raises a question concerning the legality and practical consequences of an administrative direction issued by a statutory regulatory body and implemented by universities conducting MDCAT. The grievance affects not merely the petitioner individually but a class of candidates who appeared in the same examination and are subject to the same arrangement. The fact that the issue concerns an examination does not immunize the impugned direction from judicial review. Nor does the availability of an administrative channel necessarily bar constitutional jurisdiction where the challenge concerns the legality of the very arrangement governing the candidates' access to the examination material. In the circumstances of the present case, the preliminary objection to maintainability is, therefore, repelled.

15.The submission advanced on behalf of PMDC that the impugned arrangement was intended to curb malpractice and preserve the question bank deserves due consideration. The integrity of an admission examination is a matter of legitimate public importance. The selection of candidates for medical and dental education must be conducted through a process that is secure, reliable and capable of inspiring confidence in its fairness. The regulatory authorities are consequently entitled to devise appropriate safeguards against leakage, collusion, impersonation and other forms of examination-related misconduct. The Court neither questions that authority nor seeks to prescribe the technical details of the question bank.

16.The existence of a legitimate objective, however, does not dispense with the need to examine whether the particular measure adopted is rationally connected with that objective and whether its implementation unnecessarily impairs the procedural safeguards available to affected candidates. The respondents have not identified any specific material demonstrating how publication of the question papers of the examination already conducted on 20.09.2026 would necessarily compromise the question bank or facilitate the malpractice sought to be prevented. The impugned letter itself contains no such explanation. The general assertion that collection of question papers ensures a safe and smooth examination process does not adequately address the distinct question of why the papers must thereafter remain unavailable to candidates.

17.Equally, the Court does not accept that the mere fact that a particular practice was followed in previous years conclusively establishes a vested legal right to its perpetual continuation. Administrative arrangements may legitimately be revised in response to changing circumstances, security requirements or other relevant considerations. A change in practice is not unlawful merely because it is a change. The relevant question is whether the competent authority has acted within its lawful powers and whether the new arrangement, in the circumstances of the case, is supported by a rational and

W.P. No.3516-26 & 3663-26 7

adequately explained basis, particularly when it affects the practical exercise of a remedy otherwise made available to candidates.

18.In the present case, the previous practice, the contents of the UHS guide as described by learned counsel, and the absence of any subsequent amendment or communication are relevant circumstances. The learned counsel for UHS has acknowledged that the practice of delivering the question papers to candidates was discontinued in conformity with the PMDC letter, but has been unable to identify any subsequent instrument revising the relevant guide or any separate legal framework governing the change. These circumstances reinforce the need to examine the practical effect of the impugned arrangement rather than treating the regulatory direction as sufficient justification in itself.

19.A further consideration of significance is the relationship between access to the question paper and the objection or review mechanisms provided to candidates. The respondents maintain that a procedure exists for raising objections and seeking recounting or review of answer sheets within the prescribed period. The existence of such a procedure is important; nevertheless, its practical efficacy depends upon whether candidates possess the information reasonably necessary to invoke it. Where a candidate seeks to challenge a disputed question or the corresponding answer key, the question paper constitutes the primary reference material against which the objection must be formulated. A candidate may need to examine the precise wording of a question, the available options, the relevant subject matter and the answer indicated by the official key. Requiring a candidate to reconstruct these details entirely from memory, particularly in an examination comprising 180 questions, imposes an evident practical difficulty. The difficulty is compounded where the opportunity to inspect the paper is limited and the candidate is thereafter required to identify the disputed question within a prescribed period.

20.It follows that the formal availability of an objection or review procedure does not, by itself, establish that the procedure is effective in practice. A remedy which exists in name but cannot reasonably be exercised because the material required to formulate the objection is inaccessible may fail to achieve its intended purpose. The issue before this Court is not whether every candidate will necessarily have a valid objection or whether any particular question was incorrectly marked. It is whether candidates have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to identify and articulate such objections as may legitimately arise from the examination material.

21.Transparency in an admission examination is not synonymous with unrestricted disclosure of every confidential element of the examination system. Nor does transparency necessarily require publication of a question bank before or during an examination. The legitimate interests of examination security and

W.P. No.3516-26 & 3663-26 8

confidentiality must be respected. At the same time, the authority responsible for evaluating candidates must be able to demonstrate that its arrangements permit a meaningful opportunity to identify and challenge errors in the examination material or its evaluation. In the circumstances of this case, the respondents have not sufficiently explained why public access to the question papers after completion of MDCAT-2026 for Punjab would be incompatible with the stated objective of preserving examination integrity.

22.The submission concerning the guide issued by UHS also merits consideration. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the guide contained an instruction permitting candidates to take the question paper with them. Learned counsel for UHS has acknowledged that no subsequent communication amending the guide was issued after receipt of the PMDC letter. The Court does not, on this basis alone, hold that the guide created an indefeasible right to retain the paper irrespective of any subsequent lawful direction. Nevertheless, where candidates have been informed through an official guide that they may retain the question paper, a subsequent change affecting that arrangement should be implemented through a legally sustainable and appropriately communicated process. The issue assumes greater significance because the collection of the hard copies was accompanied by the failure to make the question papers continuously accessible through the official website. Had an effective alternative arrangement been provided, the practical consequences of collecting the papers might have been materially different. The respondents, however, have not demonstrated that any equivalent arrangement was made available to candidates. The result is that the candidates have been deprived of both the physical papers and continuing access to their contents through an official platform. This consequence has not been adequately addressed by the general reasoning recorded in the impugned letter.

23.Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the examination practices followed in the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and India. Such comparisons may assist in understanding the range of arrangements adopted by examining authorities, but they cannot, without an examination of the relevant legal and operational context, determine the validity of the arrangement prevailing in Pakistan. Different examination systems may vary in frequency, duration, format, confidentiality requirements, security controls and the nature of the questions used. The Court, therefore, does not consider it necessary to declare any foreign model universally preferable or to direct its wholesale adoption.

24.The relevant question is whether the arrangement adopted by the respondents for MDCAT-2026 in Punjab is lawful and reasonably safeguards the interests of candidates affected by it. The answer must be found in the governing law, the impugned communication, the material placed before the Court and the practical consequences of the arrangement. On that basis, the respondents' failure to provide a sufficiently explained justification for withholding the question papers, coupled with the absence of an effective alternative means of access, furnishes adequate grounds for the limited relief sought in the present proceedings.

25.The judgment rendered by the Islamabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 2826 of 2024 has also been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly paragraph No.10 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “10. It is important to emphasize that the disclosure of the question paper after the MDCAT promotes transparency and accountability. This practice effectively discourages corrupt practices and eliminates opportunities for individuals to engage in unfair means. A student participating in the MDCAT receives a carbon copy of his OMR sheet. This practice allows the student to independently assess his performance once the question paper is published. Providing access to this information ensures transparency and enables students to review their answers, thereby fostering trust in the integrity of the examination process. Simultaneously, this approach discourages corrupt practices within the university and ensures that officials who engage in misconduct are held accountable for their actions. The University and the PMDC should uphold impartial roles, demonstrating no bias concerning the results of the examination. They should be committed to transparency and should not seek to conceal any issues, overlook lapses, or view students complaints negatively. This dedication to fairness is crucial for preserving the integrity of the examination process. It is imperative to uphold and protect the rights of students, ensuring that all measures are taken to address their needs and concerns. Educational institutions must establish policies that promote fairness and transparency. By fostering a respectful and inclusive environment, these institutions can comply with legal obligations and create a supportive atmosphere conducive to student success”.

Learned counsel for PMDC seeks to distinguish that judgment on the ground that the controversy there concerned allegations regarding the inclusion of questions outside the prescribed syllabus. The distinction in the factual background is a relevant consideration, but the applicability of a judicial precedent must ultimately be determined by examining the principle actually laid down and the context in which it was applied.

W.P. No.3516-26 & 3663-26 10

26.Upon a cumulative assessment of the foregoing circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned direction, as implemented for MDCAT-2026 in Punjab, has resulted in the collection of the question papers without the provision of an effective alternative means of access to their contents. The stated justification of ensuring the safe and smooth conduct of the examination does not adequately explain why the papers must remain unavailable after completion of the test. Nor have the respondents sufficiently demonstrated how making the question papers publicly accessible after the examination would necessarily defeat the objective of preserving the question bank. The practical difficulty faced by candidates in exercising the available objection and review mechanisms further reinforces the need for corrective relief.

27.The Court is mindful that its intervention must be proportionate to the controversy and should not extend into the technical domain of examination administration beyond what is necessary to remedy the grievance established. The present case does not require the Court to determine the composition of the question bank, prescribe future examination-security protocols or declare that question papers must invariably be published in every examination conducted by the respondents. The relief can appropriately be confined to the question papers of MDCAT-2026 conducted for Punjab, in respect of which the candidates have already appeared and the immediate controversy has arisen. In the previous practice, candidates were permitted to retain the hard copies of the question papers, and consequently the question of prescribing a separate period for their online availability did not arise in the same manner. In the present case, however, candidates have been deprived of the hard copies, and the papers have not been made available through the official website for continuing reference. Prescribing a limited period of online availability at this stage would introduce a further question concerning the adequacy of the period allowed and could give rise to avoidable subsequent litigation. To bring the present controversy to a conclusive resolution, it is appropriate to direct that the question papers remain publicly accessible without any specified time limit.

28.For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is ALLOWED in terms that the respondents are directed to upload the question papers of MDCAT-2026 conducted for the province of Punjab, covering all codes/paper IDs, on the official website of the University of Health Sciences, Lahore, and to make the same publicly accessible at least till finalization of admission process and thereafter invite the objections from the candidates as per the policy. The direction shall be implemented forthwith. The direction is confined to the question papers of MDCAT-2026 for Punjab and shall not be construed as prescribing a universal policy for future examinations, which shall remain

W.P. No.3516-26 & 3663-26 11

subject to the applicable law and lawful exercise of authority by the competent bodies.

29.Before parting with this judgment, it is necessary to record that, vide order dated 08.10.2026, respondent No.4-B, Registrar, University of Health Sciences, Lahore, was directed to appear in person before this Court, as the matter pertains to education and an important policy issue affecting a large number of students. However, he has failed to comply with the said order, without tendering any justification. Such non-compliance with a judicial direction cannot be viewed lightly. Nevertheless, having regard to the overall circumstances of the case, this Court refrains from taking any penal action at this stage. The Court, however, records its displeasure over the non-compliance and expects the concerned authorities to demonstrate due respect for and adherence to judicial directions in future.

(Syed Ahsan Raza Kazmi) Judge

Approved for reporting.

Judge Azeem