1993 PLP 2275 (SCMR)

SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑Federal Public Service Commission, through leave of this Court, has called in question the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 18‑8‑1992 passed in Writ Petition No.416‑S/91 filed by the respondent to challenge the order of the appellant rejecting the application of the respondent for the post of Principal, Research Officer (DESTO) (BPS‑19) on the ground that the respondent did not possess the experience required for the post. The respondent applied for the post of Principal Research Officer (AERODYNAMICS) in response to an advertisement issued by the appellant on 4‑8‑1990 on the basis of Master Degree of AERODYNAMICS with 10 years post‑master experience in research and development in the field. The application of the respondent was rejected by the appellant on the ground that he did not possess 10 years experience which was required for the post applied for. The respondent challenged the order of the appellant in a writ petition before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which was accepted by the impugned judgment and the appellant was directed to entertain the respondent's application and consider him for the post applied for in accordance with the law. The appellant had applied for leave before this Court against the impugned judgment and leave was granted by this Court as follows:‑

"The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 18‑8‑1992.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Federal Public Service Commission advertised four posts of Principal Research Officers. One of the posts relating to the field of Aerodynamics was advertised with the following conditions: (a) Ph. D. in Aerodynamics/physics/Applied Maths or equivalent with a minimum of 6 years post doctorate R & D experience in the relevant field. OR (b) Master's Degree in Aerodynamics/physics/Applied Maths or equivalent, with a minimum of 10 years Post Master experience in R&D in the relevant field. OR (c) B.Sc. Engineering in Aeronautical with a minimum of 12 years R&D experience in the relevant field."

3. The petitioner applied for the post with the following qualifications:‑‑ (i) M.Sc. Physics June,1977 (ii) Ph. D. in Physics Mathematical Sciences July, 1984 EXPERIENCE: (i) Research Officer D M Y PCSIR Laboratories Karachi 27‑8‑1978 to 6‑6‑1979. 11/10‑00 (ii) Research Assistant in Molecular Gas Dynamics, Moscow State University. (pre‑Admission to Ph.D.). 7‑7‑1979 to 30‑5‑1981 23‑11‑01 (iii) Study period for Ph.D. which the candidates claimed as Research in Molecular Dynamics Moscow State University, 1‑6‑1981 to 19‑11‑1984. 18‑5‑03 (iv) Senior Scientific Officer, PCSIR, Islamabad. 17‑9‑1986 to 13‑9‑1990 26‑11‑03

Total Exp. 19‑3 ‑10."

4. The Commission rejected the application of the respondent on the ground that he did not possess the experience required for advertised posts. The experience as claimed by the respondent at Nos. (ii) and (iii) were excluded on the ground that these two periods related to his study. The respondent challenged the order of the Commission in a Constitution petition before the High Court which was allowed by the impugned judgment. The learned High Court came to the conclusion that the time spent for obtaining Ph.D. Degree could be counted towards the requisite experience qua the petitioner who had applied for the post on the basis of Master's Degree.

5. The learned Deputy Attorney‑General submitted that the period spent by the respondent during the course of the study of the academic degree to Ph.D cannot W treated as experience as required for the advertised post, therefore, the respondent was not eligible for this post. The point raised by the learned counsel is of general public importance. We, therefore, grant leave to appeal.

6. The learned Deputy Attorney‑General further submitted that the order of the High Court be suspended as on the basis of this order, unqualified persons would also make applications. The order of the High Court relates to the present respondent and the same may not be considered as a precedent in other cases. We are not inclined to suspend the order of the High Court in the present case but in view of the urgency of the matter, the file be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for early hearing of the case, if possible, in the first week of December, 1992." The learned Deputy Attorney‑General contended before us that the required qualification for the post of Principal Research Officer (DESTO) Ministry of Defence, was the Master's Degree in Aerodynamics /Physics/Applied Maths or equivalent qualification with a minimum of 10 years post Master experience in research and development in the relevant field. The respondent in his application had claimed his experience as follows:‑‑ "EXPERIENCE: (i) Research Officer PCSIR Laboratories, Karachi 27‑8‑78 to DMY 6‑6‑1979 11/10‑00 (ii) Research Assistant in Molecular Gas Dynamics, Moscow State University. (pre‑Admission study for admission to Ph.D) 23‑11‑01 7‑7‑1979 to 30‑5‑1981. (iii) Study period for Ph.D. which the candidates claimed as Research in Molecular Dynamics Moscow State University. 1‑6‑1981.to 18‑5‑03 19‑11‑1984 (iv) Senior Scientific Officer, PCSIR, Islamabad 17‑9‑1986 to 26‑11‑03 13‑9‑1990

Total Exp. 19‑3‑10. "

The contention of the learned Deputy Attorney‑General is that items Nos. (ii) and (iii) of the experience could not be considered as a post‑master experience in research and development as this period was spent by the respondent in acquiring his Ph.D. Degree in Aerodynamics. According to learned Deputy Attorney‑General, to 10 years post‑master's experience in research and development is relatable to the job experience and as the period spent by the respondent under items (ii) and (iii) of the experience was not relatable to any job, the same could not be considered as experience for the purposes of the post applied for. The above contention was considered by the learned Judges of the High Court in the impugned judgment and was repelled as follows:‑

"There is considerable force in the arguments of the petitioner's learned counsel that the time spent for obtaining the Ph. D. Degree could be counted towards the requisite experience qua the applicant who had applied for the post on the basis of master's Degree. The studies required for a Ph. D. Degree necessarily entail research and development work. Rule 6 contained in the Calender of the University of the Punjab, 1990, Volume 1, page 529 clearly indicates that the study leading to Ph.D Degree involves research work. The word `research' means `Diligent', `Protracted investigation', studious inquiry, `a systematic investigation of some phenomenon or series of phenomena by the experimental method' (F&W Encyclopedic College Dictionary, p. 1143). According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd Edition, page 1712 the word `research' means `An investigation directed to discovery of some fact by careful study of a subject; a course of critical or scientific inquiry'. Research work for Ph.D Degree in a field of science is never academic study alone but involves practical work culminating in positive contribution toward extension of knowledge relating to the branch of study. This extension of knowledge can be treated or termed as development work in the concerned field. The very fact that the holder of Ph.D Degree, is allowed 4 years concession qua experience, clearly shows that time spent in acquiring Ph. Degree has been equated with 4 years research and development work by the respondent Commission. In the absence of a Ph.D Degree, the holders of Master's degree are required to have 10 years research and development experience for the post in question. If the Ph.D. Degree is not the product of research and development work then there could be no justification to allow 4 years concession in the matter of experience to the holder of Ph.D. Degree.

7. The next question is whether experience privately acquired by the petitioner at Moscow University after leaving his service can be considered for the post in question. There is no rule of law, at least, none has been brought to the notice of the Court, making it incumbent upon the applicant that he must have acquired the experience while being in service. The only ground for rejecting the petitioner's application (as stated in the respondent's comments) is that he had given up the job with the PCSIR Laboratories in August, 1979 and did his post‑graduation studies etc. in his private capacity. This hardly appears to be a valid ground for rejecting the petitioner's application. Hence, keeping in view the petitioner's countable experience, he appears to have the requisite experience for the post in question. The learned Deputy Attorney‑General is unable to point out any error in the above reasoning of the High Court and we also do not find any infirmity in the same. There is no merit in this case also, which is accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. AA./F‑273/S Appeal dismissed.