MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.- This judgment shall dispose of ICA Nos. 92/1991 and ICA No. 157/1991, both of which arise out of the same judgment of the leamed Single Judge whereby W.P. No. 4240/1990 filed by Dr. Ahmad Salman Waris, respondent No. 1 herein, was allowed and the selections of Dr. Naeem Akhtar in ICA No. 92/1991 and Dr. Muhammad Akmal Shau, appellant m ICA No. 157/1991 as Assistant Professor of Urology were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect as they were found ineligible to compete for the posts.
2. The applications for appointment as Assistant Professor of Urology were invited by the Punjab Public Service Commission through Public notice dated 7.10.1988 which laid down die following qualifications: "MBBS or equivalent Medical Qualifications recognized by the PMDC and the following post graduate qualifications in the subject-speciality: 1) PCPS (Urology) or 2) MS (Urology) or equivalent qualifications recognized by the PMDC.
OR ii) PCPS (Surgery) MS (Surgery) or equivalent qualifications recognized by the PMDC with Minor Diploma in Urology recognized by the PMDC. b) Three years teaching or practical experience in The subject in a recognized institution before or after post graduation.
1st Preference: Teaching experience 2nd Preference: Practical Experience after post-graduation.
3rd Preference: Practical Experience before post-graduation iii) If no such candidate is available with the aforesaid qualifications: THEN: Equivalent . MBBS or equivalent medical qualifications recognized by PMDC with FCPS (Surgery) or MS (Surgery) or equivalent qualifications recognized by PMDC with three years practical experience in Urology' in a recognized institution after graduation.
1st Preference: Teaching experience.
2nd Preference: Practical experience after post graduation".
According to the finding recorded by the leamed Single Judge, Dr. Naeem Akhtar, appellant, did not possess teaching or practical experience for three years and the certificates issued in this behalf by Dr. Hayat Zafar and Dr. M. Hanif Arif-were fake and fictitious. The leamed Single Judge, in addition to setting aside selection of Dr. Naeem Akhtar. Appellant, also directed that disciplinary proceedings be taken against Dr. Hayat Zafar and Dr. M. Hanif Arif who had issued the certificates and were impleaded as respondents in this appeal. As regards appellant in ICA No. 157/1991 namely Dr. Muhammad Akmal Sahu, the leamed Single Judge was of the opinion that he belonged to category No.2 of the candidates and could not have been selected unless no candidate from category No. 1 was available.
3. It may be stated at this stage that earlier these appeals were allowed and the judgment of the leamed Single Judge was set aside by a Division Bench of this Court on the ground that the Constitutional petition filed by Dr. Ahmad Salman Waris was not maintainable in view of Article 212 of the Constitution against which he preferred appeals (Civil Appeals Nos. 781 and 782 of 1994) in the Supreme Court which remanded the matter to this Court for decision on merits.
4. Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, the leamed counsel for Dr. Naeem Akhtar has challenged the findings of the leamed Single Judge which are to the effect that the appellant did not possess the requisite experience and the two certificates which were issued by Dr. Hayat Zafar and Dr. M. Hanif Arif were false and fake. According to the leamed counsel there was no proper evidence to sustain these findings which were controverted. Mr. Minto also submitted that being controversial questions of fact arising in the case could not have been adjudicated upon by the leamed Single Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction vesting in him under Article 199 of the Constitution. The leamed counsel maintained that in inquiries held by the Health Department itself, the last of which took place during the pendency of these appeals, the certificates produced by Dr. Naeem Akhtar were found to be genuine.
5. Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, the leamed counsel for Dr. Muhammad Akmal Sahu, the appellant in ICA No. 157/1991, has contended that at the time of selection, no candidate from Category No.1 was available and as such the selection of Dr. Muhammad Akmal Sahu was fully justified.
6. Syed Jamshed Ali, the leamed counsel who has appeared for Dr. Ahmad Salman Waris, the writ petition before the leamed Single Judge (respondent No. I herein) has supported the impugned judgment and argued that even if it be assumed that the certificates produced by Dr. Naeem Akhtar were genuine, still he would not have been eligible for appointment as according to certificates the experience gained by him was in an honorary capacity and not as a regular employee.
7. Having heard the leamed counsel for the parties at length and perused the available record, we are of the view that is not necessary for us to go into the question as to whether the certificates issued to Dr. Naeem Akhtar were fake and bogus inasmuch as even if these certificates are taken into consideration, he did not qualify appointment to the post in question. According to these two certificates which had been issued by Dr. Hayat Zafar and Dr. M. Hanif Arif, Dr. Naeem Akhtar worked in the Urology Department as Additional Resident Medical Officer from 1-1-1984 to 30-6-1984. It stands established on the record and is not denied by Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, the learned counsel for Dr. Naeem Akhtar that the post against which his client served was not a regular post and did not carry any remuneration. Thus the services of Dr. Naeem Akhtar, performed were honorary in nature. According to the Manual of Policy Decisions of Punjab Public Service Commission (Revised 1986 Edition) Page 27. The practical experience for the purposes of eligibility for initial recruitment to various serv ices posts must be in an independent responsible paid position and the experience acquired by any candidate in an honorary' capacity' was not to be counted towards the period of experience required unless otherwise specified by the competent authority . On admitted facts, therefore, Mr. Naeem Akhtar did not qualify inasmuch as the experience which he gained in an honorary capacity as Additional Resident Medical Officer could not be taken into consideration while computing the requisite period.
8. Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, the leamed counsel for Dr. Naeem Akhtar. However, submitted that the policy decision of the Punjab Public Service Commission was without any jurisdiction as it was only Pakistan Medical and Dental Council which can lay down the qualifications for the recruitment to the post of medical practitioners. This contention of the leamed counsel has no force. Although it is within the exclusive domain of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council to prescribe qualifications which a period must hold in order to qualify for practice but so far as the employment under the.
Government is concerned, the terms and conditions are laid down by it and not by Pakistan Medical and Dental Council. Even otherwise the policy decision taken by the Punjab Public Service Commission does not amount to laying down any qualification which in the present case already stood prescribed in the public notice. As the selection was being made by Punjab Public Service Commission, it was clearly within its domain to ensure that the candidates who appeared before them possessed the requisite qualifications.
9. Even otherwise from the tenor of the public notice it is evident that the teaching experience must be in regular capacity. Admittedly, there was no post of Additional Resident Medical Officer in the Urology Department of Nishtar Hospital, Multan, and the arrangement under which Dr. Naeem Akhtar performed services appears to have been made only to accommodate him and the same cannot be equated with that of a regular employee of the Department.
10. Coming now to Dr. Akmal Sahu, appellant in ICA No. 157/1991, as already observed, his selection was set aside by the leamed Single Judge on the ground that he belonged to Category No.2 and since there were other candidates from Category No. 1, he could not have been appointed.
11. Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, the leamed counsel for Dr. Akmal Sahu has contended that there was no candidate available from the Category No.1 and as such the appointment of the appellant was fully justified. This contention has no substance. In response to the public notice. 8 candidates had appeared and unfortunately, respondent No.3, Punjab Public Service Commission did not prepare a list of candidates on category-wise basis which lead to the selection of Dr. Akmal Sahu. In the report submitted by the Punjab Public Serv ice Commission before the leamed Single Judge, it was stated that it was due to oversight and on account of non-preparation of category-wise list that name of Dr. Muhammad Akmal Sahu, was included in the merit list. The report went on to state that the Commission was prepared to review and withdraw recommendation in favour of Dr. Muhammad Akmal Sahu. It is therefore obvious that the argument of the leamed counsel for appellant that no candidate was available in the Category No.1 is misconceived. The selection of appellants was thus rightly set aside by the leamed Single Judge.
12. As we have declined to go into the question as to whether the certificates issued by Dr. Hayat Zafar, and Dr. Hanif Arif, were fake or sham; we are inclined to set aside the direction of the leamed Single Judge that disciplinary proceedings be taken against them for having issued fake and false certificates. We also feel that such a finding could not have been recommended without holding a proper trial and allowing the parties to lead evidence.
Subject to the above observations, both the Intra Court Appeals are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.