2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Dr. TARIQ IQBAL Versus Dr. HAMEED-UD-DIN and others
| Citation | 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar, J |
| Parties | Dr. TARIQ IQBAL Versus Dr. HAMEED-UD-DIN and others |
| Primary Law | Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Dr. TARIQ IQBAL Versus Dr. HAMEED-UD-DIN and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz S.A. Rehman for Petitioner.
- Babar Bilal and Muhammad Shabbir Ahmad for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 6th December, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
Rr. 2(d) & 7
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Constitution petition
Appointment by promotion or transfer
Departmental Promotion Committee recommended name of petitioner for appointment by transfer, but recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee were rejected by Provincial Secretary on the ground that petitioner did not possess requisite degree/diploma in Plastic Surgery, while respondent possessed such qualification and experience
Authority had rejected recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee for cogent and relevant reasons and promoted respondent on account of his being eligible to the post in view of his having required qualification and experience
Equivalence certificate by Pakistan Medical and Dental Council, as relied upon by petitioner was hardly of any significance
Even otherwise question of equivalence would arise only when holder of specific degree/diploma or certificate was not available in the field
Respondent being Fellow of College of Physicians and Surgeons of required Plastic Surgery Discipline, question of equivalent professional qualification, did not arise at all
Departmental Promotion Committee only would make a recommendation, while Appointing Authority was obliged to accept or reject recommendations in accordance with law, equity and fairness
All three requirements being present in the decision of competent Authority, no possible exception to the same, could be taken. Muhammad Zafeer Abbasi, Deputy Secretary v. Government of Pakistan 2003 P L C (C.S.) 503 ref
Judgment & Decree
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.
In this constitutional petition following prayer has been made. "In view of the foregoing it is respectfully prayed for and on behalf of the petitioner:-- (i) That the respondent No.1 who is holding or purporting to hold the post of Associate Surgeon Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, Islamabad to be called upon to show that under what authority of law he holds or purports to hold that post. (ii) That the impugned order is void, ab initio and is contrary to the provisions of Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 especially of Article 18 thereof and in violation of the Rule 2(d) and Rule 7 of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 be struck down quashed, reversed, modified or varied. (iii) That the impugned orders, having been issued unilaterally, abruptly, arbitrarily and in contravention of the age old and well meant doctrine of "audi alteram partem". And may graciously be struck down. (iv) The petitioner having acquired vested right in all aspects of morality, legality and equity be directed to be considered for appointment in accordance with law."
2. The petitioner Dr. Tariq Iqbal is working as Associate Surgeon (Plastic Surgery) (BS-18) on deputation basis at PIMS since 2001. That post was sought to be filled on contract basis as well as on regular basis through Federal Public Service Commission. However, in view of urgent need of the department, hospitals/institutes under the Ministry of Health were requested to furnish particulars of Medical Officers/Registrars (BS-17) eligible for promotion to the post of Associate Surgeon (Plastic Surgery).
3. In response two nominations were received. The first being Dr. Hamid-ud-Din, Medical Officer (BS-18), Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre, Karachi/respondent No.1 and secondly the petitioner Dr. Tariq Iqbal. The Departmental Promotion Committee on 14-1-2004 recommended the name of the petitioner for "Appointment by Transfer" as he was basically a Medical Officer (BS-18) of Federal Government Services Hospital Islamabad and was working as Associate Surgeon in PIMS on deputation basis. The proposal/recommendation of the DPC was, however, rejected by respondent No.2/Secretary Health on the ground that Dr. Tariq Iqbal did not possess the requisite decree/diploma in Plastic Surgery, while Dr. Hamid-ud-Din possessed the qualification and experience. Therefore, he was directed to be transferred and posted as Associate Surgeon (Plastic Surgery) in PIMS. That order is assailed in this constitutional petition on various grounds.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am not persuaded to allow the said relief for the following reasons:-- Firstly, the observation of the respondent/Secretary Health that Dr. Hamid-ud-Din, Medical Officer possesses the required experience for the post is not seriously disputed. According to the office note a copy whereof has been placed on record, said Dr. Hamid-ud-Din is FCPS (Plastic Surgery) while the petitioner Dr. Tariq Iqbal is FCPS (General Surgery). The respondent Dr. Hamid-ud-Din is holding a regular appointment in that discipline since 17-8-1988 .while the petitioner Dr. Tariq Iqbal was appointed in General Surgery on 22-10-1990. Secondly, the emphasis that on disagreement with the recommendations of D.P.C. the matter ought to have been referred back to them by the Secretary is not supported from any provisions of Civil Servants Act or the Rules framed thereunder. The reference/reliance by the learned counsel for the petitioner on para-19 of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in re: Muhammad Zafeer Abbasi, Deputy Secretary v. Government of Pakistan (2003 PLC (CS) 503) is not relevant. In that case the petitioner civil servant was ignored/superseded by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the oral objection of one of the members of the Committee against whom a specific allegation of mala fide was made. In the case in hand the competent authority rejected the recommendation of D.P.C. for cogent and relevant reasons and instead transferred Dr. Hamid-ud-Din on account of his being eligible to holding the position. The position was filled merely by transfer as Dr. Hamid-ud-Din was already working as a Medical Officer in BS-18 while the post of Associate Surgeon in the Plastic Surgery Department of PIMS also fell in BS-18. The equivalence certificate dated 2-7-2004 by Pakistan Medical and Dental Council, Islamabad as relied upon by the petitioner Dr. Tariq Iqbal is hardly of any significance. The question of equivalence arises only when the holder of a specific degree/diploma or certificate is not available in the field. The respondent Dr. Hamid-ud-Din being a Fellow of College of Physicians and Surgery in Plastic Surgery Discipline, the question of equivalent professional qualification did riot arise at all, and Lastly, the reliance of the petitioner on S. L. No. 189 page 285 Esta Code in the given circumstances again is not relevant. A Departmental Promotion Committee only makes a recommendation while the appointing authority is obliged to accept or reject the recommendations in accordance with law, C equity and fairness. All the three requirements appear present in the decision in hand of the competent authority and, therefore, no possible exception to the same can be taken.
5. Dismissed in limine. H.B.T./T-105/L??????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.