' FAISAL ZAMAN KHAN, J.--- Through this petition, order dated 24.04.2015 passed by the respondents have been assailed.
2. The facts in brief are that petitioner was working as Assistant Professor with Lahore Medical and Dental College Lahore in the subject of Prosthodontics. After obtaining the qualification of MCPS (Family Dentistry), he applied to the respondents for issuance of experience certificate in the subject of Prosthodontics which he is teaching for the last 12 years which was referred to Dental Education and Recognition Committee (SRC) for conducting an inquiry however, the same was not .Concluded. Subsequent thereto, through the impugned order, petitioner has been intimated that his application has been rejected, therefore, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without assigning any reasons, the afore-noted order has been passed therefore, the same is not sustainable.
4. Replying to the above, learned DAG submits that although no reasons were given in the impugned order, however in the minutes of the meeting, case of the petitioner was discussed threadbare whereafter impugned order has.Been passed therefore the impugned order has to be read in conjunction with the said minutes therefore this cannot be termed that the impugned order is without reasons.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. For convenience, impugned order is reproduced:-- "I am to refer your application dated 10th and 11th December, 2014 addressed to Registrar PM&DC on the subject cited above. It is to inform you that the Executive Committee has decided that you are not eligible for the teaching appointment as Assistant Professor in the subject of Prosthodontics with MCPS (Family Dentistry). "
7. From the above narratives, it is manifest that the order passed by the respondents do not qualify to be a reasoned order as contemplated in Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act; no independent reasons/findings have been given by the respondents being the public functionaries which was mandatory for them. The mandate to file an application/representation is frustrated if the authority is merely to convey an order of dismissal of the application/representation without assigning any reasons. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Secretary Ministry of Health, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and another v. Dr. Rehana Hameed and others (2010 SCMR 511) and Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Ltd., Karachi v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance Central, Secretariat, Islamabad and others 2015 SCMR 630=2015 PTD 1100, Government of Pakistan through Director General, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and others v.
Farheen Rashid (2011 SCMR 1), Fasih ud Din Khan and others v. Government of Punjab and others (2010 SCMR 1778), Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi and others (1998 SCMR 2268) and Independent Music Group, SMC (Pvt.) Ltd. And another v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and another (PLD 2011 Karachi 494).
8. In the attending circumstances, the arguments raised by the learned Law Officer that impugned order has to be read in conjunction with the minutes of the meeting does not hold good. A person who approaches a public functionary for redress of his grievance expects that he will be afforded an opportunity of hearing and thereupon order passed on his application/representation will to be conveyed that too with reasons. He cannot be made to lurch in the dark and to run from pillar to post gathering different documents/information that on what grounds his application/representation has been decided. Another purpose for furnish reasons is that it makes it easy for the applicant to ascertain as to before whom he has to assail the order.
9. As discussed above, bare perusal of the impugned order itself is a clear index to the fact that respondents neither gave an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner nor have supplied reasons dismissing the application/representation of the petitioner. The aforenoted even otherwise militates the mandate of Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
10. For what has been discussed above this Court finds the impugned order to be not sustainable, therefore, the same is set aside. The representation filed by the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending D before the respondents who after affording an opportunity of hearing to him and all other concerned parties shall pass a speaking order strictly in accordance with law.
11. In the above terms, this petition is accepted.