' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.---By this petition, petitioner Iftikhar Ahmad Qureshi has sought leave to appeal impugning order dated 23-6-2000 in Writ Petition No,795 of 2000 by a learned Single Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby the same was dismissed.
2. Briefly, stated, the facts of the petition are that the petitioner obtained a Commercial Pilot Licence from competent authority according to the Civil Aviation Rules, 1978 finding him medically fit in 1980. Thereafter, he joined Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) in 1981 as cadet pilot. He was promoted as First Officer on Airbus A-300 aircraft in 1981. In the same year he was demoted to First Officer on Foker F.27 and later on he was further victimised through abrupt cancellation of his flight rosters and was directed to get examined by PIAC psychiatrist, Dr. Uniaza Niaz. She on medical examination declared the petitioner "Permanently Unfit" for flying duties and referred his case to Civil Aviation Authority for medical assessment. Consequently he was referred to Dr. Haroon Ahmed on 11-1-1993 who agreed with the partisan diagnosis of psychiatrist and opined that the petitioner was suffering from "Perceptual and Cdgnitive Deficit (Socia-Pathic personality Disorder)" and therefore, declared him "Permanently "Unfit" for renewal of Commercial Pilot license, as well as Private Pilot Licence. Being aggrieved, he filed an appeal on 11-3-1993 for constituting Review Board and at the same time he obtained opinion from three eminent psychiatrists, namely (1) Prof. Ijaz Haider (2) Prof. I.A. Tareen and (3) Prof. M. Sharif Chaudhry who opined him to be normal and free from any psychiatric disorder on 13-6-1994. In spite of so many requests and notices Medical Review Board was not constituted. Being aggrieved of such conduct of respondents the petitioner filed Writ Petition No,8411 of 1998 before the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore wherein it was ordered that the Review Board be constituted within one month and the petitioner was allowed to provide the documents. Resultantly the meeting of the Review Board was held on 21-9-1996 and the petitioner vide letter dated 7-11-1999 was informed that he was "suffering from perceptual and cognitive deficit including impaired judgment". It was this order which was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No,795 of 2000 before the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore which too was dismissed vide impugned judgment.
3. We have heard Mr. S.M. Masud, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioner as well as Kh. Saeeduzzafar, learned Deputy Attorney-General for the respondents and have gone through impugned judgment as well as record of proceedings in minute particulars.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner was neither medically examined by the Board nor other tests were taken by the Review Board, particularly when he was medically examined and declared fit by the three eminent psychiatrists namely (1)
Prof. Ijaz Haider, (2) Prof. I.A. Tareen and (3) Prof. M. Sharif Chaudhry prior to the decision of the Review Board. According to him, the impugned judgment was in contradiction of paragraph 17 of pilots Occupational disability Fund Bye-laws whereby the member shall be entitled to receive full one hundred per cent benefits amounting to Pak Rs,3 million (Pakistan Rupees three million only), or any such amount as approved by the Board of Trustees and the Annual General Meeting/Special General Meeting from time to time. According to him, the insurance benefits are immediately offered under the rules of insurance if he is released and permanently grounded but once licence is revived the re-insurance of the pilot is allowed. He further contended that the learned High Court has failed to appreciate that a discriminate treatment has been made with the petitioner and his appeal has been dismissed whereas appeals of seven pilots and eight Engineers who were permanently grounded were accepted and their licence were revised and were re- employed in servise of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC). He lastly contended that the petitioner alleged serious mala fide against respondent No,4, Member of the Board, as such, the decision of the Board is liable to be set aside. Moreover, the medical report of the petitioner that he was suffering from the disease "Perceptual and Cognitive Deficit (Socia-Pathic personality Disorder)" and was thus permanently unfit, is based on prejudice.
5. On the other side, learned Deputy Attorney-General contended that the petitioner had not come to the Court with clean hands. On one hand be has filed the petition for restoration of his Commercial licence whereas on the other hand he voluntarily approached his insurance company i,e, NIC for settlement for loss of licence claim, therefore, he by his own conduct is estopped from filing writ petitions. He supported the decision of the Review Board and stated that Brigadier Younis Khan, an Advisor in Psychiatry. Military Hospital, Rawalpindi interviewed the petitioner and afforded him full opportunity of hearing and then opined him medically unfit for a job like flying as Pilot. He lastly contended that the learned High Court cannot sit as Court of appeal against the order of Medical Review Board as observed earlier by this Court in the case of Export Promotion Bureau and others v. Qaiser Shafiullah (1994 SCM R 859).
6. The contentions advanced by the learned Deputy Attorney-General have sufficient force whereas that of learned counsel for the petitioner are devoid of force' Admittedly, the petitioner was not only declared medically unfit for revival of licence and flying purpose but had voluntarily received full insurance benefits amounting to Pak. Rs,3 million. Respondents have afforded full opportunity to produce his documents and put up his case before the Medical Review Board but failed to substantiate his claim that he was medically fit and able for renewal of commercial licence. He has not been discriminated with other employees viz. Flight Engineers and Pilots. He was declared unfit whereas other were medically found fit as such they were taken on their duties. Even otherwise as per the impugned judgment, it was candidly admitted by the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner had received an entire,claim from the Insurance Company for loss of his licence. In such situation he cannot maintain the Constitutional petition and reagitate his claim again.
7. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment which is accordingly maintained and the instant petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave refused.