' Holding of a Fellowship from the Royal College of Radiologists of United Kingdom and being possessed of the requisite practical experience in the field having worked as a Senior Registrar in Diagnostic Radiology in Hope Hospital at Manchester; as a Registrar of Diagnostic Radiology at University of Manchester and as Registrar in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital at Lahore, the petitioner herein answered the call of the Punjab Public Service Commission to compete for one of the six temporary, likely to be made permanent, posts of Assistant Professor of Radiology (Diagnostic), with the Punjab Health Department.
2. As per the notification of the respondent Public Service Commission, as appearing in the National Press of May 14, 1993, the last date for making of applications for the above said posts, in the case of petitioner who was a candidate from abroad, was 24-6-1993. The petitioner sent his application on the prescribed form (Annexure-D) supported by the required certificates etc. Which was received by the respondent Commission vide Receipt No,99787 dated 14-6-1993 (Annexure-C).
3. The requisite qualifications entitling the candidates to compete for the abovementioned posts were:--
(i) M.B.,B.S. Or equivalent qualification recognized by the PMDC with the following Post Graduate qualification:-
(a) FCPS (Radiology Diagnostic);
(b) M.D. (Radiology Diagnostic);
(c) Or equivalent qualification with three years teaching or practical experience in the subject in a recognized Institution before or after Post Graduation.
' It was further provided that if any person with the aforesaid qualifications was not available then M.B.,B.S. With a Post Graduate Diploma of DMRD or other equivalent qualifications with five years teaching or practical experience in the subject in a recognized Institution would also be eligible for the said posts.
4. According to this advertisement of the Public Service Commission (herein referred to as the PPSC), the candidates from abroad could apply on plain paper giving particulars i,e, age, qualification, experience and domicile with supporting documents. It had been further mentioned by the PPSC, as per the provision at No,3 in the General Provisions contained in the said advertisement, that candidates for the post of Health Department possessing foreign qualifications and/or experience should produce certificates of their unconditional registration/recognition/equivalence from the PMDC otherwise their applications will be rejected. A further Cautionary Note added to the said advertisement advised the candidates to read the "instructions to the candidates" attached with the Application Forms, carefully and the candidates had been warned there through that if an application was not signed and/or was received incomplete or wrongly filled in and was not accompanied by any of the documents mentioned in the Application Form, the same was to be summarily rejected and no appeal was available against such a rejection.
5. In the Application Form prescribed for the purpose, Column Nos.1 to 7 related only to name, date of birth, address, parentage etc. Of the candidates while Column No,8 related to the academic qualifications possessed by the candidates and below this column was a "Note" stating therein that all entries made in the said column should 'be supported by the certificates from the competent authorities and further that if a candidate claimed equivalence of the prescribed qualifications, then the candidate was required to state if the qualifications possessed by him stood recognised by the Government or the relevant competent authority and the authority under which the same had been recognized was also to be mentioned. In Column 13 of the Application Form, the candidates were required to mention their entire service record and no special instructions were mentioned thereunder with respect to any certificates being submitted with respect to the entries in the said column. Column 22 was a general column where a candidate was required to say 'Yes' or 'No' to various queries regarding the attachment of documents with the Application Form which were required to be attached. Entry at (h) of this column mentioned experience/service certificates.
6. The claim of the petitioner not denied by the respondent PPSC is that he had appended with his Application Form, inter alia, the certificates relating to his academic qualifications; a certificate from the University of Manchester (Department of Diagnostic Radiology) stating that the petitioner had been working as a Senior Registrar in Diagnostic Radiology at the University of Manchester Group of Hospitals since October, 1992 and that he had previously worked as a Registrar in the said Department from October, 1989 to September, 1992.
7. After six weeks of the receipt of the petitioner's application by the PPSC, a letter dated 27-7-1993 (Annexure-D) was addressed by the Secretary of the PPSC to the petitioner mentioning therein that he had not, inter alia, supplied the Foreign Experience Certificate recognized by the PMDC and that he should send the said Certificate to the Commission ensuring that it must reach it by 20-8-1993.
A note of caution had been added in the said letter warning the petitioner that in case of his failure to offer the said certification by the said mentioned date, his application will stand rejected and he shall not be called for interview. The petitioner then appears to have approached the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council, a body constituted under the Pakistan Medical and Dental Ordinance, 1962, for the grant of recognition to the practical experience possessed by him. The PMDC granted the said certificate (Annexure-E) on 26-8-1993 in the following terms:--
(i) ." your following experience can be considered as practical experience in the subject of Radiology, subject to verification of experience certificate from the issuing authority through diplomatic channels.............. " (The underlining is mine).
' This certificate was, as per the record of the PPSC handed over to it on 1-9-1993. A further certificate (Annexure-G) was issued by the PMDC on 13-9-1993 declaring therein that the petitioner was eligible to earn the benefit of his above-mentioned foreign experience on regular basis. (The underlining is mine).
8. On that very day, i,e, 13-9-1993, the PPSC addressed a letter to the petitioner (Annexure-F) stating therein that his application in question had been finally rejected because his application had been found deficient/defective on account of the absence of:-- "Unconditional PMDC recognition of Foreign Experience."
' It was perhaps on the representation of the petitioner against this rejection that the Director of Recruitment of the PPSC addressed a further letter (Annexure-I-I) to the petitioner on 21-9-1993 stating therein that the rejection orders already conveyed to him were to stand.
9. It may be mentioned here that the interviews to select candidates for the posts in question in the present case commenced from 21-9-1993 and continued up to 29-9-1993.
10. It is, aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature by the respondent PPSC that the petitioner has approached this Court, through the present Constitutional petition praying that the said impugned rejection of the petitioner's application be set aside and that consequently the petitioner be allowed to compete for one of the abovementioned posts in question.
11. This petition came up before me on 19-10-1993 when I admitted the same to regular hearing directing the listing of the same for final disposal at the earliest, being a service matter, and at the latest by the second week of November, 1993 and by way of interim relief, I had directed that in the meantime, the petitioner be interviewed by PPSC and that the final result of the interviews, held by it should not be announced till then. This was, however, subject to notice. Six persons i,e, the present respondents Nos.4 to 9 approached this Court on 26-10-1993 through C.M. No,2387 of 1993 stating that they were also amongst the candidates for the posts in question and were thus a necessary party to the present proceedings and consequently sought to be impleaded as respondents to the present Constitutional petition. This application was allowed subject to all just exceptions, in the interest of justice, and this is how the present respondents Nos.4 to 9 came to be added as such to the present petition. These respondents had also moved C.M. No,2388 of 1993 praying for vacation/modification of the abovementioned interim relief allowed by me to the petitioner and it was during the course of hearing of this application that it was considered appropriate to decide the main petition itself instead of disposing of just this vacation of interim relief application.
12. Being under notice, Syed Jamshed Ali, Advocate representing respondents Nos.4 to 9 raised a preliminary objection canvassing the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that all those persons, numbering about forty, who were applicants before the PPSC for the posts in question, were necessary parties to the said writ petition and the petitioner having failed to implead them as such had committed error which should result in the dismissal of his petition. Reliance in this connection was placed on Dr. Amanul Haq's case PLD 1989 Lahore 196 and on another judgment of this Court reported as Government of the Punjab and others v. Mst. Naila Begum PLD 1987 Lahore
336. The former was a case where certain candidates had been interviewed by the PPSC for the posts of Medical Officers/Demonstrators and where, as per the list finalized and issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission in pursuance whereof recommendation had been made to the Government of the Punjab for appointment of the said recommendees against the said posts, names of three such recommendees had been recalled through a corrigendum issued by the Commission. These three candidates approached this Court impugning the said action. Although the writ petition of the said three candidates had been dismissed essentially on factual basis nevertheless it had been observed that failure of the petitioners to implead the other recommendees of the PPSC as respondents in their petition was a fatal defect in the same. It will be noticed that in the said case, the persons not impleaded as respondents, were persons who had been finally selected by the PPSC; whose names had been recommended to the Government for appointment and in whom a right had thus accrued for recruitment against the posts in question.
' The position in the present case is, however, different because no final result of the examination undertaken by the Commission has yet been announced and consequently no one has got vested with a right which was likely to be prejudiced in the event of the acceptance of the present petition.
13. To almost a similar effect is the other cited case where the admission of certain students to Medical College in the Province of Punjab had been challenged by some unsuccessful applicants for the said admission without impleading the successful admittees as respondents to the said petition. Needless to repeat that even in this latter case, having been admitted to the medical institutions, a right had accrued to the successful entrants in the medical institutions which right was liable to be impinged in case of the acceptance of the petition filed. Suffice it to mention that the facts of this cited authority are also distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
14. As has been mentioned above, no right has accrued to any of the applicants for the posts in question and the failure of the petitioner to implead such applicants as respondents through this petition cannot be termed as a defect which was irreparable, incurable or fatal.
15. Syed Jamshed Ali, Advocate, next argued and quite forcefully that the petitioner having failed to satisfy all the requirements for entertainment of his application, by the prescribed date, no right vested in him to claim that he should be permitted to compete for the posts in question. The learned counsel went on to add that the Public Service Commission having once fixed a "Cut Off" date in the matter of submission of Application Forms, complete in all respects, had no alternative but to reject an application which was found incomplete and further that the Superior Courts, exercising Constitutional jurisdiction, had repeatedly refused to intervene in the matter. Reliance was very heavily placed on two judgments from Indian jurisdiction reported as Ranga Sawami v.
Kerala Public Service Commission (1982) 2 SLR 478) and Mrs. Savitri Batar v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (1990) 1 SLR 111).
16. In the first-cited case, the petitioner who was a Sub-Inspector in the Armed Reserved Police of Kerala had applied to the Public Service Commission to compete for the posts of Sub-Inspectors in the General Executive Branch of the State Police. The application was to be sent on a form bearing a stamp of Rs,5. The petitioner had sent the application in the prescribed form alongwith a copy thereof bearing a fifty paisa stamp, to the Public Service Commission through the Inspector- General of Police who was the head of his Department. The application of the petitioner had been rejected by the Public Service Commission on the ground that the same, as received by the Commission, was on a wrong form which mistake it subsequently transpired, had occurred in the office of the Inspector-General of Police who had mistakenly forwarded the application bearing a fifty paisa stamp instead of the form bearing a five rupees stamp. In the second-cited case, the application of the petitioner sent to Rajasthan Public Service Commission had been sent by the petitioner under registered post on July 23, 1988 which reached the Commission on August 1, 1988 whereas the last date for receipt of applications was July 30, 1988. In both these cases the High Courts of Kerala and Rajasthan had refused to interfere with the rejection of the applications by the respective Public Service Commissions.
17. In answer to this submission of the learned counsel for the private respondents, Mian Saqib Nisar, Advocate, the learned counsel representing the petitioner, submitted that the facts of the present case were distinguishable from the two cited cases. He added that the Application Form of the petitioner herein had reached the PPSC in time, accompanied by the documents required to be submitted alongwith it and that the view of the Superior Courts of our country was more in favour of the petitioner in the present set of circumstances. Reliance had been placed by him on Habib- ur-Rehman v. Government of Pakistan and others 1979 SCMR 121, Ghulam Murtaza v. Chairman of Selection Board and others 1981 CLC 274, Muhammad Zia-ulHaq v. The Admission Board and others 1991 MLD 1648, Muhammad Tariq Raza v. Province of Punjab and others 1992 CLC 1181, Miss Saubia Hadi v. The Principal, King Edward Medical College and others PLD 1993 Lah. 673 and finally a recently delivered and yet not reported judgment of this Court dated 24-10-1993 in Writ Petition No,13702 of 1992 in the case of Dr. Farokh, J. Setna v. Punjab Public Service Commission and another.
18. In Habib-ur-Rehman's case supra, an applicant for one of the seats in the Medical Colleges reserved for male students from Orakzai Agency had not been called for interview to compete for one such seat on the ground that the Domicile Certificate submitted by him which was a condition precedent to qualify a candidate for the seats in question was not valid as the same had been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kohat and not by the Political Agent of Orakzai Agency. He had approached the Peshawar High Court complaining of this wrong, through a Constitutional petition, which was allowed by the said High Court. Habibur Rehman challenged the said judgment of the High Court before the Supreme Court and while dismissing this petition and upholding the High Court judgment, it was held by the Supreme Court, speaking through Dorab Patel, J. (as his Lordship then was) that:- . Merely because this certificate was produced after the prescribed date for interviewing candidates from this Agency would not mean that the Fourth respondent was debarred from applying for admission if he was otherwise so entitled to do provided the certificate was produced before the Authorities announced the list of candidates granted the admission. In these circumstances, as the Fourth respondent had admittedly obtained far higher marks than the petitioner, the only question was whether the Certificate of Domicile granted to the Fourth respondent by the Political Agent of Orakzai Agency was in order, therefore, we are in agreement with the view of the learned Judges of the High Court that the Fourth respondent's application had been illegally rejected...."
19. In Ghulam Murtaza's case supra, Ghulam Murtaza petitioner who was a candidate for admission to Medical Colleges, had submitted a certificate regarding his NCC training which had not been issued by the Authorised Officer and his candidature had been rejected although he had submitted a certificate issued by the Authorised Officer before the final selection had been made.
Abdul Shakurul Salam, J. (as his Lordship then was) held that the rejection of the petitioner's application for admission was without lawful authority by declaring that:-- ".. It would appear from the statement of facts made above that the petitioner had filed a certificate of having completed the NCC training alongwith his application/admission form in time.
The defect, if any, of signing of the certificate was also removed and formal certificate submitted before final selection. A little technicality has been made a fetish of deprivation. Merit has to be calculated for admission with reference to facts and reality. If this existed at the relevant time but the certification thereof which is not in the hands of the candidate follows subsequently, the candidate cannot be punished for the acts of others."
20. In Miss Saubia Hadi's case supra, while, once again, dealing with the matter of admission to Medical Colleges, a Division Bench of this Court held:-- " ..The right of the candidate for admission and his/her merit is to be determined on the date when the final selection was to be made and admittedly in this case this was finalized on 3-11-1992 after 31-10-1992 when the result of the petitioner was already there.............................................................................. "
' Their Lordship went on to add that:- ".. The petitioners cannot be denied admission on the ground that the Result Card was not produced on or before 25-10-1992. The publication of the result and issuance of the Result Card is not within the control of the petitioners but within the domain of Educational Authorities. In these circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to the Maxim "Lex non cogit ad impossibilia" i,e, the law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform "
21. Dr. Satna's case abovementioned, is a case proceeding not only on identical facts but in fact on the same facts. Dr. Satna was an applicant for one of the posts which are the subject-matter of the present petition. Like the present petitioner, he had also been asked through a communication, dated 27-7-1993, to supply a Foreign Experience Recognition Certificate which he had supplied on the 16th of September, 1993 i,e, before the process of final selection i,e, the interviews, had commenced. Through the abovementioned judgment, this Court has allowed his petition and declaring the rejection of his candidature by the PPSC as being without lawful authority, this Court has permitted him to compete for the posts in question.
22. Reliance had also been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Manager Jammu and Kashmir State Property's case (PLD 1975 SC 678) in which it had been held by the Supreme Court that:--- .
"Mere technicalities unless offered an insumountable hurdle should not be allowed to defeat the ends of justice."
' This appears to be the consistent view of the Supreme Court which had earlier held in lmtiaz Ahmad's case (PLD 1963 SC 382) that:--- "Any system which by giving effect to the form and not to the substance, defeats substantive rights is defective to that extent. The ideal must always be a system that gives to every person what is his."
' Mention here may also be made of Sirajul Haq's case (PLD 1966 SC 854) wherein it had been declared that in applying relevant instruments including the Constitution, the Courts must bear in mind the principle that fairness and justice must prevail rather than be brought to destruction and the Maxim that 'Let justice prevail though the heavens should fall' must always be borne in mind.
23. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that all the thirty-nine candidates/applicants who had been called by the Punjab Public Service Commission for interviews in the present case were holders only of Diplomas from Pakistan in the relevant field except one who held a Fellowship in the relevant discipline from Pakistan and that the petitioner was the only one who was a Fellow of the Royal College of Radiologists from United Kingdom. He added that the petitioner had submitted his application well before the last date fixed for the purpose which was accompanied, inter alia, by the requisite 'certificate of experience and that he having complied with the further requirements of the Commission for supplying the recognition of PMDC of the said experience, well before the process of selection had commenced, his candidature had been unlawfully rejected. He also placed reliance on the language of the advertisement inviting applications for the posts in question and drew attention to the word "produced" as occurring in provision No,3 of the General Provisions of the Advertisement in question and contended that such like certificates of unconditional recognition were not required to be attached alongwith the Application Form but were to be produced which could have been done even at a subsequent stage either at the time of the petitioner's interview or before the finalization of selection by the Commission.
24. Mian Irfan Qadir, the learned Additional Advocate-General, representing the PPSC and the Province of Punjab and Syed Jamshed All Shah, Advocate assisting this Court on behalf of respondents Nos.4 to 9, on the contrary argued that as per the provisions contained in the notification inviting applications for the posts in question, the petitioner was required to submit a certificate from the PMDC of the unconditional recognition of the experience obtained by him in a foreign country; that as per the further requirement of the said notification, any Application Form which was not complete was liable to summary rejection and that the petitioner despite having been notified of the deficiency in his Application Form and despite an opportunity having been given to him to make up that defficiency, had not done the same within the precribed time. It was thus contended that the candidature of the petitioner had been rightly rejected. It was added that no right vested in the petitioner to claim extension of time from the PPSC and consequently this petition seeking enforcement of such a right which did not exist, was not maintainable.
25. From the able assistance provided to me by the learned counsel for the parties and from the guidance available to me through the above-noticed precedents from the Superior Courts of our country, the principles that I have been able to gather and the conclusions that I have been able to reach are:---
(a) that the judgments from the Indian jurisdiction cited by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.4 to 9 proceed on facts which are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case; and
(b) that the procedural technicalities are not to be allowed to defeat the very purpose for which these provisions exist i,e, the justice and that such technicalities can never be allowed to deny to a person what is his.
26. I may add here that the respondent Public Service Commission which consists of people of eminence has been created for the sole purpose of selecting the best possible individuals for the service of the people. It is thus the obligation of the Commission to look for such individuals and to offer them to the people and it is in this spirit that the Commission is expected to discharge its obligations. Such an attitude is all the more desirable in the matter of selection of individuals who have to be burdoned with the task of looking after our lives and our health; the individuals who have to take care of our sick, our infirm and the ailing amongst us. In times of need will we ever deny to ourselves the services of the best medical expert only because he was late by a few minutes? Nay, we prefer to wait for hours, days and weeks sitting outside the consulting rooms of the best doctors for their advice. Why should we, then, not follow the same course when it comes to selecting a doctor for others? By this I should not be understood to mean that the Commission should not follow any rules or policies in the matter of selections that they have to make because that would lead to anarchy and would create conditions which are chaotic but what I mean only is that these rules and procedural formalities should not be followed in a machine-like manner so as to destroy the very object for which the Commission was created i,e, the selection of the best equipped individuals for serving the people.
27. It is then, in this light that the adjudication of the present lis shall have to be made.
28. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it will be noticed that the "CAUTIONARY NOTE" added to the notification inviting applications for the posts in question provides that an application shall be rejected if the same was not signed and/or if the same was incomplete or wrongly filled in or if the same was not accompanied by any of the documents mentioned in the Application Form (Note: The underlining is mine). Various columns of the Application Form and the requirements mentioned therein have been noticed in detail in preceding part of this judgment. A bare perusal of these requirements, as contained in the Application Form, would amply demonstrate that the applicants were not called upon, through any of these provisions to attach with the Application Form, a certificate granted by the PMDC recognising the practical experience attained by the applicant in a foreign country. On the contrary, it was provided through Provision No,3 of the General Provisions contained in the said notification that the candidates for the posts of Health Department, possessing foreign qualifications and/or experience, should "produce" certificates granted by the PMDC unconditionally recognising the foreign qualifications and experience, otherwise their applications will be rejected. (Note: The underlining is mine). It will thus be appreciated that by using the word "produce" as against the word "attach with or "accompanying" the Application Form, in respect of the recognition certificates in question, the inference is irresistible that there was no mandatory requirement that such-like certificates must be submitted alongwith the Application Form and that it would be sufficient if the applicant could produce them at some later stage. The PPSC, not having fixed any time or stage for the production of such certificates, it could be safely concluded that the same could be made available to the PPSC at any time before the selection in question was finalized. This interpretation of these provisions of the notification in question will be in accord with the principle of liberal construction of the Penal Provisions in favour of the subject. It may be added that the provision regarding the production of the certificates in question by the applicants and not of their attachment with the Application Form, could not be termed as a mere innocent use of the word "produce" instead of the word "attach" or accompanying". The different terminology used with respect to the certificates in question is not without wisdom and the reason for the same is not far to find. Such like certificates are not the ones which have been obtained by the applicants like the academic degrees obtained by them. These certificates have to be granted by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council which is a Statutory Body and over the affairs of which and over the speed with which the said Council proceeds in the matter, the applicants exercise no power or control. The conduct of the PPSC which is before this Court also appears to be in line with this interpretation because in spite of the fact that such a certificate had not been attached with the petitioner's Application Form, the petitioner's application had not been summarily rejected and on the contrary the petitioner had been called upon to supply the said certificate to the PPSC at a stage well past the last date for receipt of Application Forms.
29. The communication through which the petitioner had been called upon to supply the certificate in question to the PPSC, had been issued to the petitioner on 27.7-1993 which was about six weeks after the submission of the Application Form by the petitioner and more than a month after the last date for the receipt of applications by the PPSC. The time allowed by the PPSC to the petitioner to do the needful was three weeks i,e, up to 20-8-1993. The rationale behind the fixing of this date to offer the certificate in question to the PPSC was, however, not clear. On a question put by me, the officials of the PPSC who were present in Court submitted that it was in pursuance of a decision of the full Commission that further time had been allowed to the petitioner and the applicants similarly placed, to make the documents in question available to the Commission. This decision was taken by the Commission in its meeting held on 29-5-1993 and had prescribed that the candidates from abroad should be given four more weeks to make up the deficiencies in their Application Forms. Although this decision, to my mind, was not strictly applicable in the matter of production of recognition certificates, nevertheless, no date had been fixed by the Commission from which this period of four weeks was to start running. On a further question by me, the officials of the PPSC submitted that this period of four weeks commenced from the date of notification of the deficiency to the concerned applicant. Even if it be presumed so, the fact remains that the present petitioner had not been allowed this full period of four weeks to make up the alleged deficiency as the letter communicating the said deficiency is dated 27-7-1993 and the date fixed for making up of the said deficiency was 20-8-1993 which made it only three weeks and not four.
However, if this interpretation of the officials of the PPSC was to be accepted that the four weeks were to start running from the date of the communication of the deficiency in question, then the concerned applicants would stand placed completely at the mercy of a ministerial act of an official in the Commission and the fate of such candidates would depend upon the date on which such an official communicated such a deficiency to such a candidate. If this official woke up a day earlier, then the candidate might be doomed and if he took another couple of days to despatch the required communication, then the candidate would be made. I am afraid, the fate and the future of the candidates cannot be left to be decided by the ministerial officials of the Commission.
Therefore, the abovementioned interpretation put by the officials of the Commission to the commencement of the four weeks, cannot be accepted as valid.
30. Be that as it may, I have held above that it was no mandatory requirement of the PPSC that the said certificate of recognition granted by the PMDC must accompany the Application Form because, as per the language of the notification in question itself, the PPSC had stated that such like certificates should be produced by the candidates. In the absence of any time having been fixed by the Commission for the production of such certificates, the Commission was bound to accept these certificates and not to reject the candidature of any applicant if they were produced at any time before the process of selection was over. Needless to add that any ambiguity in a penal provision has to be resolved in favour of the subject.
31. In the present case, the petitioner had supplied the certificate in question to the Commission on 1-9-1993. The candidature of the applicant had, however, been rejected as per the impugned communication dated 13-9-1993, not on the ground that the said certificate did not accompany the Application Form but for the reason that the same was not an "unconditional recognition by the PMDC of his foreign experience. The certificate of recognition granted by the PMDC to the petitioner which is dated 26-8-1993 and which was, as has been mentioned above, supplied to the Commission on 1-9-1993, stated that the foreign experience of the petitioner could be considered as practical experience in the subject of Radiology. A proviso had, however, been added to this certificate to the effect that this recognition was subject to verification of the experience certificate in question from the issuing authorities and which verification had to be done through diplomatic channels.
32. This was the proviso on which reliance had been placed by the Commission through the learned Additional Advocate-General, to state that the recognition of the petitioner's experience was not unconditional. In reaching such a conclusion, the Commission, as also the learned Additional A.G., had failed to appreciate the subtle distinction between the recognition granted to the experience possessed by the petitioner in a foreign medical institution and the verification of the document which had been produced as evidence of such an experience. The recognition of the experience by the PMDC means that the work done by the holder of this experience as also the medical institution in which the said work had been done, were of the standard which was acceptable to the concerned authorities in Pakistan. So far as the hopsital in Manchester, where the petitioner had worked as a Registrar and then as a Senior Registrar being a standard and an acceptable institution was concerned, the PMDC had obviously expressed no reservations through the certificate in question (Annexure-E). The proviso appended to this recognition was with respect to the verification of the certificate which the petitioner had produced and this could not be termed as a conditional recognition of the petitioner's experience. This verification of the said document was only to find out, through its own independent sources, i,e, diplomatic channels, that the certificate carried by the petitioner was in fact a genuine certificate issued by the concerned authorities which are claimed to have issued the same. Therefore, to say that the grant of recognition of the PMDC being subject to verification of the certificates, was a conditional recognition of the petitioner's experience is not a correct interpretation of the said document. It may, however, be added here that the PMDC had, subsequently, issued a further certificate on 13- 9-1993 (Annexure-G), perhaps after verification of the petitioner's certificate, which unconditionally declared that the petitioner was eligible to earn the benefit of his foreign experience in question.
This further certificate had also been supplied to the Commission on the day when the impugned rejection of the petitioner's candidature had been despatched to the petitioner.
33. From what has been noticed and discussed above, I feel persuaded to hold that---
(a) the petitioner was not required to attach any certificate from the PMDC recognising his foreign experience, alongwith his Application Form and he was required only to produce the same for which no date had been fixed by the Commission through the notification issued for inviting applications for the posts in question;
(b) the candidature of the petitioner, as would be evident from the impugned communication of the Commission, dated 13-9-1993 (Annexure F) had not been rejected on the ground that the certificate in question did not accompany his Application Form but because the said certificate supplied by him did not "unconditionally recognise" the foreign experience gained by him;
(c) this interpretation by the PPSC on the recognition certificate in question dated 26-9-1993 (Annexure-E) issued by the PMDC is not correct and the recognition in question could not be interpreted to mean a conditional recognition of the petitioner's foreign experience in question;
(d) in any case, the petitioner had supplied a further certificate of recognition issued by the PMDC on 13-9-1993 (Annexure-G) which was in unequivocal terms and which had been supplied well before the selection in question had been finalized by the PPSC and in fact even before the interviews for the said purpose had commenced.
34. In this view of the matter, it is held and declared that the rejection of the petitioner's application in question by the Punjab Public Service Commission, through its impugned communication, dated 13-9-1993 (Annexure-F) as reiterated through a subsequent communication, dated 21-9-1993 (Annexure-H), was illegal and of no legal effect. As a consequential relief to the petitioner, it is directed that the petitioner's candidature shall be treated as valid; he shall be accordingly treated as a valid candidate for one of the posts in question and shall be allowed to compete for appointment to the said post.
35. The present petition is thus allowed in. The above terms. There shall, however, be no orders as to costs.