1985 PLP 91 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- The Government of the Punjab (Respondent No. 2 herein) issued an advertisement for filling a post of Physiotherapist in Grade-18. The qualifications prescribed in the Punjab Health Department (General, Specialist and Miscellaneous Posts) Service Rules, 1981 against Item No. 14 to the Schedule of the Rules reads as follows: - "

14. Physiotherapist (a) B.Sc. (Physiothera- 50% by initial recruit (Grade-18) py) Karachi of equiva- ment; and lent qualification; and 50% by promotion on the (b) 5 years' experience in basis of seniority-cum the speciality after B. fitness from amongst Sc. (Physiotherapy) Grade-17 Physiothera practical experience in pists having five years the speciality after service as such." Physiotherapy. The advertisement published in the newspapers with regard to this post was in the following terms:- "(a) B.Sc. (Physiotherapy) Karachi or equivalent qualification; and (b) 5 years' experience in the Speciality after B.Sc. (Physio therapy) or 10 years' practical experience in the Speciality after diploma in Physiotherapy." The petitioner and respondent No. 1 were candidates for the abovementioned post and the Public Service Commission Punjab found the petitioner to be suitable for appointment to it and made its recommendation to the said effect. Respondent No. 1 challenged the decision of the Public Service Commissioner by filing a writ petition in the Lahore High Court which has been allowed by a learned Single Judge on the ground that the petitioner did not possess a degree in Physiotherapy and the two clauses in Item No. 14 of the Schedule with the Rules, 1981 dealt with qualifications and experience separately and hence the petitioner, who was only a Diploma-holder with over 10 years' experience, but did not posses the degree of B.Sc. (Physiotherapy) was not qualified for appointment. The Intra-Court Appeal filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge also failed. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. Mr. Muhammad Arif, in support of this petition for leave to appeal, assailed the judgment of the High Court on several grounds and after hearing him we consider that this is a fit case to examine it further with a view to seeing whether the High Court has not erred in law in allowing respondent No. l's writ petition, in the facts and circum stances of this case. Leave is, accordingly, granted. The appeal will be made ready on the present record, with liberty to the parties to add further documents. Security in the sum of Rs. 1,

000. Since the post in dispute is still lying vacant as a result of the intervention in this case by the High Court, we consider that a very early date should be fixed for hearing and disposal of the appeal. The office will take expeditious steps to complete this appeal and make it ready for hearing which will be fixed in the week commencing 9th June, 1984. Order accordingly. M. Z. M. Leave granted.