' QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.--- Through this single judgment we intend to dispose of Writ Petition No,144 of 2010, filed by Dr. Ajmal Shah and Writ Petition No,129 of 2011, filed by Dr. Habibullah Shah.
2. In his petition Dr. Ajmal Shah is aggrieved of the recommendation of summary by respondent No,1 of the posting of respondent No,3 as Assistant Professor Surgery, at Bannu Medical College Bannu, through informal proceedings without asking for any option from the petitioner or other qualified surgeons to that effect; that it was in fact an attempt to give an opportunity to the respondent No,3 to give him the requisite experience in surgery; that such recommendation is violative of PMDC, rules, Provincial Health Services rules, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission rules; that such act of respondents Nos.1 and 2 only smack of arbitrariness and bureaucratic high handedness being without lawful authority; that instead the petitioner being qualified and experienced in the field of surgery deserved to be posted as Assistant Professor Surgery at Bannu Medical College; that respondent No,3 was posted as Assistant Professor in anatomy department at Bannu Medical College in December, 2006 and since then has been availing of all the benefits/facilities attached to the post; that the petitioner is working as District Surgeon/Consultant in District Headquarter Hospital, Bannu since 5-8-2006 and is also teaching to the Medical students and is qualified and experienced in every respect than the respondent No,3.
3. During the pendency of the writ petition filed by Dr. Ajmal Shah the appointment order of Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Khan as Assistant Professor on ad hoc basis for a period of one year vide Notification No,SOH-1/(HD)2-58/BMC/2011 dated 10-3-2011 was issued by the respondent No,1 and aggrieved of the same Dr Habibullah Shah challenged the same in Writ Petition No,129 of 2011. Since common questions of the qualifications and experience of the petitioners, Dr. Ajmal Shah and Dr. Habibullah Shah as against the respondent, Dr. Muhammad Shoaib are involved, therefore both are decided through this single judgment.
4. As per the petitioners (in both writ petitions) they are more qualified than he respondent Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Khan and they have more experience in the field of surgery, while the respondent Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Khan has no experience in the field of surgery, rather he has teaching experience in the field of anatomy only, which is a basic science subject and not a clinical subject, like surgery. Respondent, Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Khan with the collusion of respondents No,2 was approved for appointment as Assistant professor Surgery, but on their objection, he was once dropped and the department again advertised the post of Assistant Professor Surgery, in daily Mashriq, Peshawar dated 2-12-2010. In pursuance whereof petitioners and respondent appeared for interview, but the respondent, Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Khan was again appointed at the same very post, on ad hoc basis for a period of one year, vide impugned notification.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted detailed arguments on the qualifications and experience possessed by the petitioners to have been appointed against the post of Assistant Professor as against the respondent No,3, who lacked the requisite qualification and experience. He submitted that petitioner, Dr. Ajmal Shah passed MBBS in the year 1983 and subsequently did his MS (Master of Surgery) in the year 1997, was appointed as district specialist in BPS-18 on contract basis in 2001 and was selected as district specialist by Public Service Commission in the year 2005 and has to his credit a rich experience in surgery; that the respondent No,3 worked as Senior Medical Officer and then as a trainee till 2005 and qualified FCPS in 2006; that the respondent No,3 has been teaching basic science subject i,e, anatomy as against a clinical subject of surgery; that respondent No,3 was unduly favoured by respondent No,2 to teach at surgery department at Bannu Medical College to get the requisite experience; that the respondent ' No,3 was earlier too recommended' by the Departmental Selection Committee in health department against the post of Assistant Professor Surgery in January, 2010, but was dropped on the objection raised by the petitioner; that in second round he was again appointed through impugned notification; that instead the post in question should have been referred to the Public Service Commission for onward selection and appointment of a proper, qualified and experienced candidate. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect invited our intention to the types of duties performed by the petitioner, respondent No,3 and the other rival candidate, namely Dr. Habibullah Shah (petitioner in the clubbed Writ Petition No,129 of 2011). In the end it was urged to declare the impugned notification regarding appointment of respondent, Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Khan as Assistant Professor Surgery to be illegal and in violation of rules.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No,3, vehemently rebutted the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He submitted that the respondent No,3 has been rightly selected keeping in view his qualification and experience in the relevant field. In this respect he also produced an experience certificate showing his experience in the relevant field of surgery prior to qualifying FCPS examination. He added that the petitioner possesses FCPS degree as against the petitioner, Dr. Ajmal Shah, who possesses only MS; that earlier too, the petitioner had raised objection viz the experience of the respondent No,3 and then finally advertisement was made in daily Mashriq, Peshawar dated 2-12-2010 for the post of Assistant professor surgery on contract basis for which Dr. Ajmal Shah along with Dr. Habibullah Shah (petitioner in Writ Petition 129 of 2011) also applied and after proper scrutiny and keeping in view the respective qualifications and experience of the petitioners and respondent No,3, the latter was appointed on ad'hoc basis as assistant professor surgery vide notification ibid, hence the writ petition being not maintainable and based on sheer mala fide be dismissed.
7. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their valuable assistance.
8. Both the learned counsel are on agreement on the point that the ultimate authority vests with the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission to select a candidate for the post in question.
Such being the case, we would not comment upon the respective qualifications or experience of the petitioners (in both the petitions) and respondent Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Khan lest it may prejudice the selection process of Public Service Commission in its future selection for the post.
Similarly, we also deprecate the ad hocism undertaken by the government in various departments without placing proper requisition with Public Service Commission. From the record it transpires that requisition has already placed with the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission for the post. We, therefore, direct that the entire process of selection be completed at the earliest, but certainly not later than six months. Moreover, the contract appointment against which the respondent, Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Khan has been working since 3rd March, 2011 should not be renewed for a further term and the post be filled through the selectee of the Public Service Commission in which not just the petitioners before us and the respondent Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Khan, but also other qualified and experienced candidates may also apply.
9. For the reasons stated above, both these writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.