' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Briefly stated, the facts leading to the instant appeals by leave of this Court are that respondent No,1--Dr. Roohi Manzoor Khan, Associate Professor of Pharmacology, Punjab Medical College, Faisalabad claimed her promotion as Professor Pharmacology in the Health Department on the basis of her seniority and foreign qualifications i,e,, Master of Philosophy in Pharmacology from University of New Castle upon Tyne (U.K.) Dr. Farooq Javed, appellant in C.A.
No,69 of 1999 and respondent No,2 in C.A. No,9 of 1999, claims his own eligibility for promotion as Professor vis-a-vis Dr. Roohi Manzoor Khan although he is junior to her. The case of the Secretary, Health Department, Government of Punjab is that an Equivalence Committee was consisted on 8- 11-1995 to determine the equivalence of foreign qualifications of Dr. Roohi Manzoor Khan. The committee opined that the Degree of Master of Philosophy in Pharmacology from the University of New Castle upon Tyne (U.K.) is not equivalent to that of 'Master of philosophy (Pharmacology)' from the University of the 'Punjab. According to the appellant Government/ respondent No,3 in C.A. 69 of 1999, the Equivalence Committee held a thorough probe into the details of the Courts leading to the foreign qualification above mentioned and came to an unambiguous conclusion that the same are comparatively inferior to those leading to the Degree of Master of Philosophy (Pharmacology) from the University of the Punjab.
2. Respondent Dr. Roohi Manzoor Khan filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, and remained successful therein with, inter alia, the following observations: "In the light of the above discussion, it follows that question of determination of equivalence of foreign qualifications with local qualifications is for the appointing authority to determine, that in the instant case no determination of equivalence of qualifications is involved, that the appellant is eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Professor as respondent No,2 is, and it is the selection authority alone which has the discretion to obtain any expert advice if it so feels, and the question of fitness of the candidate is for the selection authority to decide in the light of the rules as interpreted above As to the contention of respondent No,2 that the appellant does not possess the requisite teaching experience for promotion as Professor, it was brought out that she has now fulfilled the requisite experience and in any case cannot be ignored from being considered, being admittedly senior to respondent No,2. The case for promotion to the post of Professor from amongst the eligible candidates, including the appellant and respondent No,2 shall, therefore, be placed before the selection authority i,e, the Provincial Selection Board expeditiously."
3. We have heard Mr. Ghulam Haider Al-Gazali, learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab for the appellants in C.A. No,9 of 1999, Mr. K.M.A. Samdani, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellant in C.A. No, 69 of 1999, as also Mr. Mian Fazle Mehmood Fazli, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mr. Hafiz Tariq Naseem, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondent--Dr. Roohi Manzoor Khan. The criticism made by the learned Law Officer against the impugned judgment was confined only to the absence of any mala tides at the door of the Equivalence Committee in not recognizing the foreign qualifictions of Dr. Roohi Manzoor Khan and the argument was that the Tribunal should not have interfered therewith. Mr. K.M.A. Samdani was also of the view that as the foreign qualification of Dr. Roohi Manzoor Khan was not recognized by the Competent Authority, the facility being extended her on account of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Contrarily, Messrs Fazli and Nasim have supported the impugned judgment.
However, Mr. Hafiz Tariq Nasim prefaced his arguments with the submission that there are more than one vacancies of professors to be filled by the concerned quarters after the cases of all concerned are processed before the Provincial Selection Board. The Government of the Punjab as well as appellant--Dr. Farooq Javed are not quite right in objecting to the entitlement of his client "to be considered" for promotion alongwith others, including Dr. Farooq Javed. The delay in the finalization of the process is causing unnecessary anguish to her. Both the learned counsel for Dr. Roohi Manzoor Khan were also of the view that (1) as their client is admittedly senior to Dr. Farooq Javed and (2) as the constitution of the Equivalence Committee has not come about on the asking of the Provincial Selection Board/the Competent Authority the Province of Punjab should go ahead with the filling of the post of Professor, according to law.
4. There is force in the contention being raised on behalf of Dr. Roohi Manzoor Khan that she is eligible for being considered for promotion against one of the many posts of Professor to be filed in accordance with the current discipline in vogue which has the support of the relevant law and/or rules on the subject. We find that Dr. Roohi Manzoor Khan is senior to Dr. Farooq Javed and, in the absence of any direction emanating from Government/ The Provincial Selection Board in that behalf, the alleged non-recognition of the foreign qualification of Dr. Roohi Manzoor Khan cannot be equated with her exclusion from the normal process of promotion to the post of Professor, without more. The plea raised before the Tribunal and repeated by Mr. K.M.A. Samdani here that Dr. Roohi Manzoor Khan is not qualified for promotion on acco1unt of the decision of the Equivalence Committee, is of little help to his client. This position is in itself sufficient to uphold the judgment under appeal, para.6 whereof is to the point: "In the light of the above discussion, it follows that question of determination of equivalence of foreign qualifications with local qualifications if for the appointing authority to determine, that in the instant case no determination of equivalence of qualifications is involved, that the appellant is eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Professor as respondent No,2 is, and it is the selection authority alone which has the discretion to obtain any expert advice if it so feels, and the question of fitness of the A candidate is for the selection authority to decide in the light of the rules as interpreted above. As to the contention of respondent No,2 that the appellant does not possess the requisite teaching experience for promotion as Professor, it was brought out that she has not fulfilled the requisite experience and in any case cannot be ignored from being considered, being admittedly senior to respondent No,2. The case for promotion to the post of professor from amongst the eligible candidates, including the appellant and respondent No,2 shall, therefore, be placed before the selection authority i,e, the Provincial Selection Board expeditiously.
5. Resultantly, these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.