MLD 2025

2025 PLP 923 (MLD)

Dr. Abdul Hanan and 3 others — Petitioners Versus Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary and 25 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
2024-June-11
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2025 PLP 923 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties Dr. Abdul Hanan and 3 others — Petitioners Versus Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary and 25 others — Respondents
Primary Law (a) Educational Institution, (b) Interpretation of statutes
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 PLP 923 (MLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: (a) Educational Institution, (b) Interpretation of statutes as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 PLP 923 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 PLP 923 (MLD) (Dr. Abdul Hanan and 3 others — Petitioners Versus Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary and 25 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(a) Educational Institution (b) Interpretation of statutes

Representation

  • Muhammad Nadeem Iqbal Zahid for Petitioners.
  • Mian Abdul Sattar Ijaz for Respondent No. 3.
  • Barrister Ch. Muhammad Umar for Respondents Nos. 6 and 7.
  • Barrister Hassan Khalid Ranjha, Additional Advocate General.

Headnotes / Summary

Medical education

Petitioners applied for induction in the FCPS/MD/MS course against quota reserved for foreign seats for Post Graduate Residency Program

Change of Policy was made through a notification regarding non-consideration of marks of Matriculation (SSC) and Intermediate (HSSC) for the candidates, who had applied for foreign quota seats

Retrospective effect of such notification

Scope

Beneficial/earlier notification was in field at the time of advertisement containing the policy for induction in Postgraduate Residency Program and it was the terms of that notification that would govern the induction process

Amendment in the rules/policies cannot operate retrospectively for taking away the vested rights of the parties

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly

Amendment in the rules/policies

Scope

Amendment in the rules/policies cannot operate retrospectively for taking away the vested rights of the parties.

Judgment & Decree

Shams Mehmood mirza, J.

This order shall decide the present writ petition as well as connected Writ Petition No.48425 of 2023 on account of similarity of facts and the challenge made to notification dated 14.07.2023.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners applied for induction in FCPS/MD/MS course on foreign quota for Post Graduate Residency Program. The advertisement in this regard was carried out on 29.05.2023 and the cut-off date for filing of the application was 05.06.2023. At the relevant time, notification dated 11.03.2021 issued by the Specialized Healthcare and Medical Education Department, Government of Punjab was in force under which 2% quota was allocated to foreign seats and a formula was also provided for awarding points to the candidates applying for the course. The foreign candidates were required to obtain equivalence of their educational testimonials from Inter Board Coordination Committee/respondent No.6.

3. The petitioners applied online for induction in the Postgraduate Residency Program and their names were mentioned in the provisional merit list issued on 03.07.2023.

4. Specialized Healthcare and Medical Education Department, Government of Punjab on 14.07.2023 issued a notification stating that the marks of Matriculation (SSC) and Intermediate (HSSC) in terms of clause 13(5) of Notification dated 11.03.2021 (as modified by notification dated 19.05.2023) shall not be considered for the candidates who have applied against foreign quota seats.

5. The petitioners contend that notification dated 14.07.2023 cannot be given retrospective operation for depriving the petitioners' candidature who were otherwise eligible for induction in the Postgraduate Residency Program as per the formula provided for in notification dated 11.03.2021.

6. Report and parawise comments have been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 in which it is stated that notification dated 14.07.2023 was issued to keep all the candidates, local and foreign, at par with each other and to make the induction process transparent and merit basis.

7. The only law point involved in these petitions is whether respondent No.2 could issue notification dated 14.07.2023 for applying it to the induction process that had already commenced on 29th May, 2023. As noted earlier, at the time of advertisement notification dated 11.03.2021 was in field containing the policy for induction in Postgraduate Residency Program. It is the terms of this notification that would govern the induction process. The rights of the candidates applying for the post of Postgraduate Residency Program stood crystalized when the advertisement was carried out on 29.05.2023 and applications were filed pursuant there to. It is settled law that amendment in Rules/Policies cannot operate retrospectively for taking away the vested rights of the parties. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgments reported as Lt. Muquddus Haider v. Federal Public Service Commission through Chairman, Islamabad 2007 PLC (C.S.) 229 and Muhammad Zubair Khan Niazi v. Chief Secretary and others PLJ 2017 Lahore 814.

8. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and it is declared that notification dated 14.07.2023 has no retrospective effect on the induction process for Postgraduate Residency Program which was initiated on 29.05.2023. The respondents are accordingly directed to prepare the merit list in accordance with notification dated 11.03.2021. SA/A-48/L Petition allowed.