1984 PLP 1499 (SCMR)

M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑ Leave was granted in this case to examine if the High Court had correctly interpreted the rule relating to the qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment to the post of Physiotherapist (Grade 18) under the Punjab Health Department.

2. The relevant rule, which is at serial No.14 of the Punjab Health Department (General, Specialists and Miscellaneous Post) Service Rules, 1981 reads as follows: "

14. Physiotherapist. (a) B.Sc. Physiotherapy 50% by initial (Grade 18) Karachi or equivalent qualifi‑ recruitment cation and (b) 5 years' experience in 50% by promotion on specialty after B.Sc. the basis of (Physiotherapy) or 10 years' Seniority‑cum‑fit‑ experience in the speciality ness from amongst after Diploma in Physiothe‑ Grade 17 Physiothe rapy. rapists having five years' service as such." The Punjab Public Service Commission to whom the post was referred, selected and recommended Muhammad Mumtaz ul Hasan appellant for appointment but the same was challenged by Ata Ullah Mehar respondent No.l, one of the competing candidates, through Writ Petition No.4100‑S of 1981, on the ground that the appellant did not possess the basic qualification of the prescribed degree in Physiotherapy or its equivalent. While the writ petition was still pending, the Government issued a letter of appointment to the appellant on 28‑12‑1981, which too was challenged by the said respondent by getting the writ petition amended and the Government impleaded.

3. The stand taken by the Commission before the High Court was that the rule laid down two alternative qualifications, that is, (i) B.Sc. (Physiotherapy) Karachi or equivalent qualification and 5 years' experience in speciality after B . Sc. OR (ii) 10 years' experience after Diploma in Physiotherapy. This, according to the Commission, was "the only logical interpretation for the reason that a candidate who is B.Sc. needs 5 years' experience after B.Sc. and if he is a Diploma holder he needs 10 yeas' experience after acquiring Diploma". The Provincial Government, however, in its comments, did not consider that the appellant was possessed of the prescribed qualifications and accordingly did not oppose the writ petition. The learned Judge of the High Court came to the view that the rule provided two different categories of qualification, i.e. (a) academic and (b) experience, which both must be possessed by the candidate and that, therefore, since the appellant did not possess the academic qualification of the required B.Sc. Degree or its equivalent he could not have been recommended by the Commission nor appointed by the Government. The learned Judge accordingly accepted the writ petition and declared the recommendation of the Commission as also the offer of appointment made by the Government to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The appellant moved an Intra‑Court Appeal but the same was dismissed by a Division Bench which affirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued in support of the interpretation put by the Provincial Public Service Commission, that is, "10 years' experience in the speciality after Diploma in Physiotherapy" was an independent and alternative qualification and submitted that there would be, otherwise, no purpose for bringing in the requirement of a diploma if the minimum academic qualification was only a degree. For this he sought support also from the view taken by the Solicitor to the Provincial Government, who had in his letter dated 12‑12‑1981 conveyed to the Health Department. *** this Department is of the view that though the B.Sc. (Physiotherapy) Karachi is a higher qualification and the Diploma in Physiotherapy falls in the lower category, still the deficiency of the latter has been made up with experience, that is ten years' experience in the case of Diploma as compared to 5 years' in case of B.Sc. Accordingly, a per on holding a mere Diploma in Physiotherapy with ten years' experience as such has been brought at par with the person possessing B.Sc. Physiotherapy with five years' experience and, therefore, the former can compete in the selection. Therefore, the interpretation of the Rules as given by the Public Service Commission while making selection appears to be correct."

5. The construction put by the Commission and the Solicitor, as aforesaid, must necessarily involve in re‑arranging the qualification prescribed for the post. Rule 18 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, lays down that "A candidate for initial appointment to a post must possess the prescribed educational qualifications and experience * * * *". It is in conformity with the requirement of this rule that the qualification prescribed for the post is split in two parts, namely, part (a) the academic qualification and part (b) the experience, which both must be possessed by a candidate for the initial recruitment to the post. For the academic qualification, the rule requires a candidate to possess B.Sc. degree in Physiotherapy from Karachi or equivalent qualification. It is nobody's case that a diploma possessed by the appellant has been declared by the relevant authority to be equivalent to a degree from Karachi. As for experience, there are two alternative requirements, that is, (i) five years' experience after B.Sc. in Physiotherapy or (ii) ten years' experience after diploma in Physiotherapy. The use of the word 'after' is significant and holds the key to the true interpretation of the required qualification. The intention apparently is that while every candidate must be possessed of the required degree he should, in addition, also have the experience in the speciality either of 5 years' after the degree or of 10 years' after the diploma. This alternative experience of 10 years' after diploma is meant to cover the cases of those candidates who though possessed of a degree have either no experience after the degree or have experience but the same falls short of 5 years' after the degree. Thus a candidate who has 10 years' experience after the diploma would only meet the requirement of experience in part (b). He must, nevertheless, possess the B.Sc. degree for his academic qualifica tion. There is and could be no other interpretation of the relevant rule. It is to be noted that even for the initial recruitment to the post of Assistant Physiotherapist (Grade 16), the required qualification is B.Sc. degree in Physiotherapy or equivalent qualification. That being so, it does not appeal to reason that the relevant rule intended to permit a candidate to seek recruitment to the higher post in Grade 18 without a degree.

6. It is thus obvious that the requirement of 10 years' experience after diploma in part (b) is an alternative to the requirement of 5 years' experience after degree in Physiotherapy in that part and is ink no way intended to overreach or substitute the requirement of the academic qualification of a degree in part (a). In fact the interpretation sought to be put on behalf of the appellant or for that matter by the Commission or the Solicitor would render part (a) redundant. It has been commented by Maxwell (The Interpretation of Statutes Twelfth Edition at page 47) that "the good expositor of an Act of Parliament should 'make construction on all parts together, and not of one part only by itself'. Every clause of a statute is to be construed with reference to the context and other clauses of the Act, so as, as far as possible, to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute". And further that "A construction which would leave without any effect any part of the language of a statute will normally be rejected". The view taken by the High Court that the experience of 10 years after diploma was not a substitute for a B.Sc. degree, which was an independent academic qualification to be possessed by all candidates, is thus the correct view, which is in accord with the scheme of the relevant rule. The appellant not having the required academic qualification was not qualified. His Intra‑Court Appeal was, therefore, rightly dismissed. His present appeal must fail and is accordingly dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs. S.Q. Appeal dismissed.