' CH. IJAZ AHMA.D, J.----This I.C.A. Is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 4-5-1999, whereby Writ Petition No,5400 of 1999 field by the appellant challenging the vires of the notice, dated 26-2-1997 issued by respondents Nos,1 and 2 and revocation of the eligibility certificate, dated 15-2-1997 by respondent No,3, has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts, out of which the present I.C.A. Arises are that respondent No,3 issued an Eligibility Certificate on 15-3-1992 in favour of the appellant for the post of Associate Professor of Cardiology, on the basis of the experience certificates issued by Administration of Sh. Zayed Hospital. The respondent No, 3 revoked said eligibility certificate on 15-2-1997 and intimation for revocation was given to respondent No,2. After receipt of intimation of revocation of eligibility certificate, the respondent No,2 issued show-cause notice to the appellant on 26-2-1997, requiring him to explain why he should not be posted back as Assistant Professor of Medicine and why further appropriate disciplinary actions should not be taken against him. The appellant challenged the vires of the show-cause notice, dated 26-2-1997 issued by the respondent No,2 and also the order, dated 15-2- 1997 whereby eligibility certificate of the appellant petitioner had been revoked through Constitution Petition No,5400 of 1999 which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment, dated 4-5-1999 hence this I.C.A..
3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that basic order of revocation of eligibility certificate, dated 15-2-1997 passed by respondents Nos,3 and 4 is without lawful authority as the same was passed without providing personal hearing to the appellant and none of the respondents has intimated the appellant qua the revocation order till issuance of impugned notice by respondent No,2; further argued when the basic order is without lawful authority then the superstructure laying thereon has to fall to the ground automatically; the eligibility certificate issued by the respondent No,3 on 15-3-1992 has been acted upon and remained in the field till 15- 2-1997 therefore, principle of locus poenitentiae is attracted in this case; further argued that it is inherent right of the appellant that the cancellation of the said certificate must have been passed after providing personal hearing or at least after issuance of show-cause notice to the appellant as the right had accrued in favour of the appellant by afflux of time.'
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the P.M.D.C. Argued that certificate was issued to the appellant on the recommendations of the respondents Nos,1 and 2 qua his experience on 15-3- 1992 which was cancelled on 15-2-1997 as the original certificate issued by the respondent No,2 in favour of the appellant regarding experience was withdrawn by them as the same was obtained by the appellant by misrepresentation or by playing fraud with the respondents Nos,1 and 2; further argued that there is no provision to provide personal hearing to the appellant under the provisions of the P.M.D.C. Ordinance, 1962 that the writ petition was rightly dismissed as the appellant failed to point out any malice against P.M.D.C.
5. Syed Zafar Ali, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of respondent No,4 'and has argued that prima facie order of cancellation of the Eligibility Certificate is without lawful authority, as the same was issued in violation of the principle of natural justice but the original certificate of eligibility has been obtained by the appellant by playing fraud and misrepresentation in violation of the Regulation and provisions of P.M.D.C. Ordinance, 1962. As it is evident from the documents filed by the respondent No,4 with his application for impleading him as party to the I.C.A. Before this Court, therefore, the P.M.D.C. Was justified to withdraw the eligibility certificate without providing personal hearing to the appellant. He further urged that appellant obtained basic certificate of eligibility from P.M.D.C. Under the influence of Minister which prima facie is in violation of the Regulation 15 of the P.M.D.C. Regulations; further argued that learned Single Judge was justified to refuse to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant on the well-known principle: he who seeks equity must come with clean hands; further argued that the appellant obtained experience certificate from Administrator of the Hospital, who has no authority to give such type of certificate as he is only incharge of the . Hospital; whereas competent Authority is relevant Dean Faculty of the Institution to issue certificate regarding teaching experience, further argued that basic certificate was obtained by misrepresentation and playing fraud; hence the question of personal hearing does not arise.
6. Syed Ibrar Hussain Shah, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondents Nos,1 and 2 and has adopted the arguments or Syed Zafar Ali, Advocate for respondent No,4; further argued that learned Single. Judge was justified to dismiss the writ petition of the appellant as the appellant did not approach the Court with clean hands.
7. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record ourselves. The appellant has challenged the vires of the notice, dated 26-2-1997 and order dated 15-2-1997 of revocation of Eligibility Certificate which was initially issued by the P.M.D.C., dated 15-3-1992. The writ petition is not maintainable to the extent of challenging vires of the notice, dated 26-2-1997 as principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the reported judgment of Shagufta Begum's case (PLD 1989 SC 360) and Abdul Waheed's case (PLD 1989 SC 508). The appellant is well within his right to agitate the matter/vires of the notice by filing reply before the competent Departmental Authority or agitate the matter before the higher authority of his department in accordance with his own service laws applicable to him.
' The second question whether. P.M.D.C. Was justified to cancel or revoke the eligibility certificate without providing personal hearing or issuing show-cause notice to the appellant or not. It is well- settled law that the certificate must be cancelled after providing personal hearing to the appellant.
After addition of Article 2A in the Constitution the public functionaries cannot pass any order without providing personal hearing to the concerned person as the same is in violation of Injunctions of Islam. It is common principle which governs the administration of justice in Islam that in case of liability with penal or quasi-penal consequences and/or deprivatiopn of basic rights a notice as well as an opportunity of hearing are of absolute necessity as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in reported judgment Pakistan and others v. Public-at-large and others (PLD 1987 SC 304).
' It is also settled proposition of law that the Legislature' knows the rules of natural justice and where it does not prescribe any rule different from the rules of natural justice, it means that the rules of natural justice are followed. The P.M.D.C. Admitted in this report and comments that the certificate was cancelled without providing personal hearing to the appellant. There cannot be any cavil that, if an order passed by an authority has been given effect to or has been acted upon, it cannot be subsequently withdrawn to the detriment of effected person but in case order has been obtained by misrepresentation or by fraud, then this principle is not attracted in arriving this conclusion we are fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Engineer-in-Chief Branch through Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and another v. Jalal ud Din (PLD 1992 SC 207). It is better and appropriate to reproduce the relevant provision of P.M.D.C. Ordinance, 1962 and Regulations framed thereunder. Section 15 of the P.M.D.C. Ordinance, 1962 reads as under -- Power of the Council to certify certain persons to be possessed of sufficient medical qualification.
"If the Council is ,satisfied that a person is, by reason of qualifications granted by a medical institution outside Pakistan, not included in Second Schedule, and of experience gained in any party of Pakistan, possessed of qualification which entitle him to be recognised as possessed of sufficient medical qualifications for the purposes of this Ordinance, it may, with the approval of the Central Government, certify that the person was possessed of such qualifications; and, on such certification by the Council, the person shall be deemed to be possessed of qualifications which are recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of this Ordinance for such period and upon such conditions as may be specified by the Council in this behalf."
' Regulation 15 of the P.M.D.C. Reads as under:-- "The experience gained in one speciality shall not be counted for appointment/promotion in other speciality in clinical subject. For example experience gained in Orthopaedic Surgery cannot be counted for appointment/promotion in General Surgery. Similarly experience gained in cardiology etc. Cannot be counted for appointment/promotion in General Medicine and vice versa. However, if there is no separate Department of Cardiology, Neurology, Orthopaedics, etc. And the cases are dealt in the Department of Medicine and Surgery respectively then the experience gained in such departments can also be counted in General Medicine and General Surgery respectively for the purpose of appointment/promotion."
' The council should make some inquiry before issuing a certificate to any person which is mandatory provision of Ordinance which is defined by the superior Courts and laid down the principle that authority must have to apply his own independent mind. Satisfaction means the existence of a state of mental pursuasion much higher than mere opinion. The word "satisfied" means simply makes up its mind as per Lord Persons in Blyth v. Blyth (1966 AER 524) Dixon, J, defined it as actual pursuasion, that means a mind not troubled by doubt or to adopt the language of Smith, J. a mind which has reached a clear conclusion see Angland v. Payne (1944 N.Z.L.R. 610).
The word "satisfaction" is undoubtedly a condition precedent to the exercise of powers under section 15 of P.M.D.C. Ordinance by the Competent Authority. We are also fortified by the following judgments:-- ' PLD 1988 Lah. 725 (Khawaja Muhammad Sharif's case), PLD 1989 SC 166 (Haji Saif Ullah's case) and PLD 1964 SC 673 (Abul A'la Maudoodi's case).
Keeping in view the law laid down by the superior Courts in the aforesaid judgments, we partly allow the appeal and declare the order of P.M.D.C., dated 15-2-1997 whereby Eligibility Certificate has been revoked as void and without lawful authority and the P.M.D.C. Shall pass a fresh order after providing personal hearing to the appellant. The appellant is hereby directed to appear before the Competent Authority of P.M.D.C. On 4-5-2000 and the Competent Authority shall decide the matter in accordance with law without being influenced by the aforesaid observations of this Court within one month of the receipt of this Court after providing proper hearing to the appellant.
' Before the parting within this judgment, we observe that P.M.D.C. Is not merely a post office as in the present case, Council issued original eligibility certificate and cancelled the same without applying independent mind. We find that there was a misconception regarding applicability and scope of provisions of Ordinance on part of those governed by it.