SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--Leave to appeal was granted to the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (hereinafter referred to as the Council) to examine whether respondent could claim, and the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 21st of May, 1990 could declare the act of the appellant refusing to do something not in accordance with law, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The respondent was on the teaching staff of the Khyber Medical College and was M.B., B.S. Of the Peshawar University of 1962. She had thereafter obtained a Diploma in Clinical Pathology from London in four Modules after undergoing a course extending for a year. She had another Diploma in Pathology. When the promotion post became available, she approached the Council for equating her qualification of Diploma as `Medium' which the appellant after hearing the respondent and examining her case refused to do. She instituted a Constitution petition and her claim was based on the following facts:- "That D.C.P. (London) under the Old Regulations was awarded on successful completion of a rigorous course in Four Modules (subjects) namely Histopathology Haemetology Micro and Chemical Pathology in one year. Under the current Regulations each Module of the D.C.P. Takes half a year to complete. Thus it makes a minimum of two years now to complete all the Four Modules:'
She sought the writ in the following words:-- " ....Writ declaring the order of the P.M.D.C. Refusing registration to the petitioner's post-graduate qualification of DCP (London) D. Path (England) as equivalent to M. Phil Pak, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, for the following amongst other reasons:..:'
She elaborated this relief further as hereunder:- "...This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ declaring the order of the P.M.D.C.
Refusing registration of petitioner's post-graduate qualification as medium qualification to be illegal, arbitrary, mala-fide, without lawful authority and of no legal effect. And the Respondent may be directed to proceed in this regard in accordance with law and reason."
3. The claim was contested by the appellant and the High Court ultimately held as hereunder:-- "This shows that the P.M.D.C. Has favoured double standards. On the one hand they register the M.R.C.P. (UK), F.R.C.S. (UK) F.C.P.S. (Pak.) as major qualifications which have got no regular course but are granted merely on passing an examination after about 2 and a half years of subject experience/training from the date of passing of the basic qualification of M.B. B.S. But in the case of D.C.P. (London) Four Modules which was awarded to the petitioner after 3 years subject experience/training, having one year rigorous course of the higher standard of the University of London to which admission is granted on very high merit to only one person from Pakistan, the P.M.D.C. Wrongly interprets this qualification as minor qualification."
The High Court concluded as hereunder:- "It is on record that the petitioner had also obtained another qualification, D. Path (England) from U.K. In the same subject, therefore, these two qualifications have to be registered as major or at least medium qualifications equivalent to M. Phil (Pak) and the stand of the P.M.D.C. By not registering qualifications of the petitioner as major or medium equivalent to M. Phil (Pak) is incorrect and highly unjustified. Once again we would refer to Annexure-G of the writ petition wherein it has been clearly recorded by the Royal College of Pathologists London that DCP (London) Four Modules under the Old Regulations is highly regarded by them and is exempt from the primary examination of M.R.C.P. Whereas DCP (London) Two Modules and DCP (Pak) are not exempt from this examination. This shows superiority of the said course."
On these findings of facts, the High Court granted the respondent the . Following relief:-- "From what has been said above, we are of the firm view that the order of P.M.D.C. Refusing registration of the petitioner's postgraduate qualification as Medium qualification is illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and without lawful authority. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed accordingly."
4. Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, the learned Advocate-on-Record representing the appellant contended that the Regulations of the Council provide for only major and minor qualifications.
There was no concept of medium qualification and the direction of the High Court would amount to require the appellant to do something which the law does not permit it to do.
5. Mr. Safdar Hussain, the learned Advocate-on-Record representing the respondent, on the other hand, pointed out to a number of instances where the appellant had used the word `medium' for determining the equivalence of the Diplomas and qualifications earned abroad. He has filed the copies of the judgments also in other cases wherein the High Court itself had determined the equivalence of such degrees and Diplomas.
6. After going through the Ordinance No. XXXII of 1962 (The Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962--hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) and the Regulations framed there under, we find that there is a misconception on the part of those governed by it like the respondent and also on the part of the appellant. The law envisages recognized medical qualifications and recognized additional medical qualifications. Former includes any of the medical qualifications contained in the first and second schedule of the Ordinance or recognized under section 14 or section 15 of the Ordinance. The powers reserved under sections 14 and 15 of the Ordinance are of the Central Government and of the Council acting with the approval of the Central Government to recognize individual qualifications not contained in the second schedule. The recognized additional medical qualification means any of the medical qualification included in the third schedule of the Ordinance. The Diploma qualification, obtained from London is contained in the third schedule. It is mentioned as a post-graduate Diploma and the only condition attaching to its being recognized as additional medical qualification is that it should have been granted after a training of at least one academic year. These qualifications are for registration and the respondent at no stage faced any difficulty in getting the qualification registered. This e registration is not required under the law to be either as minor, major or his medium. The power of framing Regulations contained in section 33 of the Ordinance does not confer any such power of classification on the Council for the purposes of registration of these additional medical qualifications. The Ordinance in clause (d) of subsection (2) of section 33 confers on the Council a power of "prescribing minimum qualifications and experience required of teachers for appointment in medical and dental institutions". It is in exercise of this power that the Council has framed Regulations for the appointment of Lecturers /Senior Registrars, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, Professors and Examiners. The operative part of it reads as hereunder:-- "REGULATIONS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF LECTURERS/ SENIOR REGISTRARS, ASSISTANT PROFESSORS, ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS, PROFESSORS AND EXAMINERS All degrees/diplomas mentioned in columns 2 & 3 of these Regulations are subject to the recognition/registration by the Council (candidates must produce Valid Registration Certificate with all qualifications he claims). All diplomas recognized/ registered a~ equivalent to F.C.P.S, M.S., M.D. (Pak) are major diplomas/degrees and those recognised/registered as equivalent to M.C.P.S. Are minor diplomas. These Regulations shall be effective from 15th January, 1984 and shall not have retrospective effect. Persons appointed before 15th Jan., 198.4 shall be governed by the Regulations on the subject for appointment/promotions applicable at the time of their appointment to teaching cadre. These Regulations are mandatory. The qualifications mentioned in these Regulations are in order of priority."
In the Chart that follows in the remarks column, there are certain entries existing like; (i) for the post of Lecturer "person having higher qualification and experience shall be preferred", (ii) for the post of Assistant Professor that Minor Diploma holders shall be considered only when persons with higher qualification are not available: and for the post of Associate Professor the following remarks exist in the relevant column:-- "For the appointment of Associate Professor in the respective subjects the holder of minor diplomas should be considered only when person with higher Post-graduate qualification like D.Sc., Ph.D., M.
Phil. With required experience indicated in these Regulations are not available."
For the post of Professor the following entry exists:-- "No Diploma holders be eligible for appointment as Professor."
For the post of Assistant Professor in Medicine, Surgery, etc. The following remarks exist:-- "The holders of the Minor Diploma like M.C.P.S. Shall not be eligible for appointment/promotion as Asstt. Professor, Associate Professor and Professor for which holders of higher diploma/degree are only eligible:"
7. In. The first place the Regulations contain no category of medium qualification. Therefore, all the efforts of the respondent to get a declaration from the Court of law that her qualification should be considered as medium when the medium category does not exist either in the law or in the Regulations, would be asking the Court to grant a relief not provided for or recognized by law.
Similarly, the Council has been following wrong practice of registering additional qualifications as minor or major because having laid down in the Regulations itself the standards, it is when for teaching posts the candidates come forward with such qualifications that qualifications have to be examined on their comparative merits and not on the basis of registration records containing minor or major, which is not recognised classification for the purposes of registration. Such a categorisation is only for the purposes of appointment against the various posts and not for registration.
8. Apart from the fact that there is no category of medium qualification though the Council has at times been using that expression outside the law and outside its own Regulation, the respondent could not claim, having undertaken a 'course of one year, that it should be considered to be not a course of one year but equated with a course of two years or more. This is a most unreasonable demand. Similarly, the High Court has showed, if we may say so with utmost respect, unawareness of the system of awarding post-graduate diplomas and degrees by saying that the Diplomas earned after taking a course of study for a fixed period should rank higher than those which are obtained only after appearing at an examination. The scheme of the Regulations under consideration appears to be that for the purposes of registration a minimum of one academic year's course/training diploma and passing of the examination is required. The Diplomas granted after two years academic study get preference over one year diploma not for the purpose of registration but for the purpose of appointment on teaching staff. There are other examinations well recognised in the Medical profession which are not preceded by regular teaching course but they follow practice and experience for required number of years. Their standing and value is not determined by whether the course had been undertaken or not but by general understanding and qualification as a professional. The High Court can only adjudge the unreasonableness in a case of the determination by the Council but it cannot on its own notion in such a technical matter adjudge the equivalence.
9. The appellant's entire case was based on the ground that she had studied four modules in one year which under the new Regulations are studied in two years, therefore, she should get credit for two years instead of one year. Such an approach to the issue is unreasonable and palpably untenable. In this age of specialization, the time devoted to each subject determines the level of specialization and not the number of subjects covered during the period. Similarly, the High Court should not have adjudged the Council guilty of double standards when one examination is confined to subjects taught and the other is an open ended professional examination.
10. The Constitution petition filed by the respondent should have failed on the simple ground that she wanted her qualifications to be equated as medium which neither the law nor the Regulations provide for. It is either registration or appointment, dealt with by the law and the Regulations. Her additional medical qualifications having already been registered, no grievance could arise on that score. The comparative value of her additional qualification is to be adjudged by the selecting authority for the purposes of appointment or promotion.
11. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the Constitution Petition filed by the respondent is dismissed.