Dr. Syed Shah Rukh Hassan Rizvi & 10 others Vs Chief Secretary GOP etc.

StereoHCJDA 38

Judgment Sheet

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P. No. 11429 of 2026.

Dr. Syed Shah Rukh Hassan Rizvi and 10 others. Versus Chief Secretary, Govt. of the Punjab, S&GAD, Lahore etc.

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 20.10.2026.

Petitioners by: M/s Tahir Mehmood Mughal, Muhammad Husnain Bhatti and Shazia Rajab, Advocates.

Respondents Mr. Sikandar Nisar Joiya, AAG for by: respondents No.1 to 3.

Mr. Mazhar Qayyum Gondal, Advocate for

PMDC.

SHIREEN IMRAN, J: - Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners have challenged Advertisement No.43/2025, Case No. 110-RE/2025, dated 13.11.2025, issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) for recruitment against eight posts of Assistant Professor Neurosurgery (BS-18). They have sought suspension of the recruitment process and reconsideration of the advertised eligibility criteria in accordance with the Regulations for the Appointments/Promotions of Faculty/Teaching Staff/

Examiners/Principals/Deans/Vice Chancellors in Undergraduate and Postgraduate Medical and Dental Institutions/Medical Universities of Pakistan, 2025 (hereinafter to be referred as “PMDC Regulations, 2025”), framed by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (hereinafter to be referred as “PMDC”).

2.Briefly put, the facts of the case are that the petitioners are serving as Senior Registrars and Associate Professor in different teaching hospitals of Punjab. The PMDC notified the PMDC Regulations, 2025, on 27.02.2025, prescribing qualifications and experience for appointment to teaching posts, including Assistant Professor Neurosurgery. Subsequently, respondent No. 3 forwarded a requisition dated 22.10.2025 to the PPSC for recruitment against eight posts of Assistant Professor Neurosurgery under the initial recruitment quota.

Pursuant thereto, the following advertisement was issued on 13.11.2025, prescribing eligibility criteria under the Punjab Specialized Healthcare and Medical Education Department (Medical & Dental Teaching Posts) Service Rules, 1979 ((hereinafter to be referred as “Service Rules, 1979”), as amended on 02.07.2021. The petitioners, asserting that the advertised criteria are inconsistent with the minimum experience prescribed by the PMDC Regulations, 2025,

submitted representations before the respondents. Having failed to obtain the desired relief, they instituted the instant petition.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the PMDC Regulations, 2025, have been framed under the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2022, and possess statutory force; that the said Regulations prescribe two years of relevant clinical experience for appointment as Assistant Professor Neurosurgery; that the impugned advertisement permits recruitment of candidates without the requisite experience and is therefore inconsistent with the federally prescribed minimum standards; that under Article 143 of the Constitution, federal legislation prevails over inconsistent provincial legislation within the constitutionally prescribed sphere; that the respondents cannot dilute the minimum professional qualifications and experience prescribed by the PMDC and that the impugned advertisement is consequently unlawful and liable to be set aside.

4.Learned Law Officer representing respondents Nos. 1 to 3 contends that recruitment to the posts in question is governed by the Service Rules, 1979, as amended on 02.07.2021; that the said Rules prescribe 50% recruitment through initial appointment and 50% through promotion on the basis of

seniority-cum-fitness; that out of 38 sanctioned posts of Assistant Professor Neurosurgery, 19 fall within each quota;

that all 19 posts reserved for promotion are already occupied whereas the eight advertised posts fall exclusively within the initial recruitment quota; that the advertisement faithfully reproduces the qualifications prescribed under the provincial service rules and that the petitioners have no vested right to appointment merely by virtue of their experience.

5.The stance of respondent No. 4, Punjab Public Service Commission, as portrayed in their report and parawise comments is that the Commission issued the impugned advertisement pursuant to the requisition received from the Specialized Healthcare and Medical Education Department and in accordance with the notified service rules and instructions of the concerned Administrative Department; that 90 online applications were received against the eight advertised posts and the applicants were provisionally called for interviews scheduled from 04.02.2026 to 18.02.2026; that the Commission is required to adhere to the qualifications and recruitment criteria prescribed by the competent Administrative Department and has no independent authority to alter the statutory service rules; that matters relating to promotion and determination of the relevant recruitment quota fall exclusively within the

domain of the Administrative Department and that the Commission has acted within its lawful jurisdiction and no illegality or discrimination has been established in the recruitment process.

6.Learned counsel representing respondent No. 5, Pakistan Medical and Dental Council, contends that the Council is a statutory regulatory body established under the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2022, for regulating medical and dental education and maintaining uniform minimum professional standards throughout Pakistan; that Section 47(2)(d) of the Act expressly empowers the Council to prescribe minimum qualifications and experience required of teachers for appointment in medical and dental institutions; that in exercise of the powers conferred by the Act, the Council framed the PMDC Regulations, 2025; that the said Regulations possess statutory force and are binding upon medical and dental institutions; that where the eligibility criteria advertised by the PPSC are contrary to the minimum qualifications and experience prescribed by the PMDC Regulations, 2025, the latter shall prevail and that the eligibility of candidates for appointment as Assistant Professor must therefore be determined in accordance with the PMDC Regulations, 2025.

7.Arguments heard; record perused.

8.The main controversy requiring determination is whether the eligibility criteria prescribed for appointment as Assistant Professor Neurosurgery under the Service Rules, 1979, can prevail over the minimum professional qualifications and experience prescribed under the PMDC Regulations, 2025. The controversy also involves the application of Article 143 of the Constitution, which regulates inconsistency between federal and provincial legislation.

9.The Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2022 is a federal enactment providing for regulation of the medical and dental professions and education in Pakistan. Section 47(2)(d) thereof expressly empowers the PMDC, being supervisory body, to frame statutory regulations prescribing minimum qualifications and experience required of teachers for appointment in medical and dental institutions. Exercising this statutory authority, the PMDC framed the PMDC Regulations, 2025, which apply to appointments and promotions governed by their provisions. In regulations No.1(2) it has been mentioned that all previous appointments made under previous regulations shall remain unaffected and that these regulations

shall apply to all future appointments and promotions. The said regulation, for facility of reference is reproduced herein below:- “2. They shall come into force immediately upon publication and apply to all furture appointments and promotions. All existing appointments made under previous regulations shall remain unaffected.”

Further, in Section-III of said Regulations, the relevant qualification for the post of Senior Registrar and Assistant Professor is mentioned as under: -

The qualifications and experience prescribed thereunder is not merely administrative recommendations but statutory regulatory requirements intended to maintain uniform minimum professional standards throughout the country. On the other hand, impugned advertisement has been issued mentioning the edibility criteria as contained in the Service Rules, 1979, which reads as under: -

MBBS or equivalent medical qualification from an institute or a University recognized by the Pakistan Medical Commission and FCPS or MS or FRCS or

MRCP or MD or Diplomat of American Board in the respective specialty or equivalent medical qualification in the respective specialty from an institute or University recognized by the Pakistan Medical Commission.

If none is available with above qualifications then:

MBBS or equivalent medical qualification from an institute or University recognized by the Pakistan Medical Commission and FCPS or MS or FRCS or MRCP or MD or Diplomat of American Board (General Surgery or Medicine, whichever is relevant to the respective specialty) or equivalent medical qualification from an institute or University recognized by the Pakistan Medical Commission with three years' post- graduation practical experience in the respective specialty from a recognized institute.”

10.The constitutional position is governed by Article 143 of the Constitution, which provides that where a provision of a provincial enactment is repugnant to a provision of a federal enactment which Parliament is competent to make, the federal enactment shall prevail and the provincial enactment shall, to the extent of such repugnancy, be void. The principle is, however, subject to the existence of an actual inconsistency within the respective legislative fields. It does not follow that every federal regulation automatically supersedes every provincial service rule. The Court must ascertain whether the provisions are capable of harmonious operation or whether compliance with one necessarily entails violation of the other.

11.Earlier a similar matter came up before this Court in the case of Dr. Sulman Jaffar v. Government of Punjab and others

(2016 CLC 466), concerning with the competing authority of the PMDC and the Punjab Government in determining eligibility and teaching experience for appointment to medical teaching posts. In the said case, this Court examined whether the qualifications and experience prescribed under provincial service rules could prevail over the eligibility criteria determined by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) under federal legislation. In the said case, in Paragraph No.8, this Court, referring to the cases of Dr. Abrar Maqbool v.

Government of Punjab (2004 PLC (C.S.) 373) and Dr. Abrar Hussain Ahmed Khan v. Government of Punjab (1995 CLC 1409), discussed the principle that where PMDC regulations framed under federal statutory authority conflict with provincial service rules, Article 143 of the Constitution becomes relevant and the provincial provisions must give way to the extent of inconsistency. This Court in Paragraph No.8 of said case further referred to the case of Zulfiqar Ahmed v. Punjab Public Service Commission (1997 MLD 1925), emphasizing that where a competent statutory authority has declared a qualification equivalent to the prescribed qualification, the recruiting authority cannot arbitrarily disregard that equivalence merely because the precise nomenclature of the qualification differs.

Paragraph Nos.10 & 11 of the case reported as Dr. Sulman

Jaffar v. Government of Punjab and others (2016 CLC 466) reads as under: -

“10. It is undisputed legal position that Respondent No.3 (PM&DC) is creation of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962. In exercise of powers under Section 33(2) of this Act, 'Regulations for the Appointment of Faculty Professorial Staff/Examiners/ Principals/ Deans/ Administrative Staff in Undergraduate and Postgraduate Medical & Dental institutions of Pakistan, 2001, were framed. Under these regulations, the petitioner could not have been appointed as Associate Professor unless he had five years teaching experience as Assistant Professor in relevant subject. This is an admitted position that the petitioner is an Associate Professor recognized by the PM&DC. Under regulation No.22 of said regulations, PM&DC is empowered to give the equivalence as certified in experience letter/certificate dated 26.07.2013. In present case, the eligibility/experience of the petitioner was determined by PM&DC under a statutory authority (Federal Legislation) and the respondents are ignoring the same by enforcing the purported Rules made under the authority of Provincial Legislation. No scholarly discussion is required to hold that the authority given by the Provincial Legislation is void under Article 143 in presence of an authority for determining the eligibility given by the Federal Legislation i.e. PM&DC Ordinance,

11.In my considered view the act of the respondents of substituting the eligibility/experience determined by the PM&DC shall lead to uncertainty and may give way to discrimination and arbitrary exercise of administrative powers. The PM&DC is statutorily recognized institution to determine the qualification in the field of medicine. Even otherwise, it has superior authority, being specialized and technically equipped, to opine on the eligibility/experience in a particular discipline.

It is observed that the uncertainty is already prevalent; Health Department of respondent No.1, in some other advertisement, while describing the eligibility criteria

has stipulated that "Qualification/ experience required as prescribed by PM&DC". Meaning thereby; the Health Department is itself not following a uniform and consistent policy. Such inconsistent advertisements by the Health department are, without doubt, in violation of Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.”

The principle relevant to the present controversy is that professional eligibility standards prescribed by the competent federal regulatory authority cannot be displaced by inconsistent provincial requirements. Although the said judgment arose under the earlier statutory framework but the question of statutory competence remains material to the controversy in hand.

12.The departmental report reveals that there are 38 sanctioned posts of Assistant Professor Neurosurgery, equally divided between initial recruitment and promotion. According to the vacancy position, dated 07.10.2025, all 19 posts falling within the promotion quota have been occupied whereas the eight advertised posts belong to the initial recruitment quota.

Consequently, the contention that the impugned advertisement violates the prescribed 50% promotion quota is not substantiated by the material available on record. The petitioners cannot claim appointment against initial recruitment vacancies merely because they are serving as Senior Registrars.

Nevertheless, this circumstance does not absolve the

respondents of their obligation to prescribe eligibility criteria consistent with the applicable PMDC Regulations, 2025.

13.A comparison of the two sets of eligibility criteria discloses a material difference. The PMDC Regulations, 2025, prescribe, for appointment as Assistant Professor in the relevant clinical specialty, a recognized Level-III postgraduate qualification, two years of clinical experience in the relevant subject in a recognized institution and two research publications in the relevant subject. The Service Rules, 1979, as amended in the year 2021, permit initial recruitment on the basis of specified postgraduate qualifications without expressly requiring the aforesaid two years of post-qualification clinical experience or research publications under the primary eligibility category. Thus, the impugned advertisement, to the extent that it permits consideration of candidates who do not satisfy the minimum PMDC requirements, is inconsistent with the federally prescribed professional standards.

14.It is settled law that statutory rules and regulations must be interpreted in a manner that advances the purpose of their parent enactments and avoids inconsistency wherever possible.

However, where harmonious construction is not reasonably possible, the constitutional principle contained in Article 143 of

the Constitution becomes relevant. The Punjab Government undoubtedly possesses authority to regulate appointments to provincial posts through its statutory service rules but such authority cannot be exercised to negate minimum professional qualifications and experience prescribed under a federal enactment within the legislative competence of Parliament. The Service Rules, 1979, may supplement the PMDC requirements through additional lawful conditions but cannot reduce or dispense with the minimum professional standards prescribed by the competent federal regulatory authority. Accordingly, the Service Rules, 1979, must be read subject to the minimum qualifications and experience prescribed under the PMDC Regulations, 2025, insofar as appointments to medical teaching posts are concerned.

15.Another important aspect of this matter is that the impugned advertisement was issued after enforcement of the PMDC Regulations, 2025. In regulations No.1(2) it has been mentioned that all previous appointments made under previous regulations shall remain unaffected and that these regulations shall apply to all future appointments and promotions.

Therefore, the respondents were required to ensure that the advertised eligibility criteria is in consonance with those Regulations. The mere fact that the advertisement reproduced

the existing Service Rules, 1979, does not establish its legality where the minimum professional requirements prescribed by the PMDC have not been incorporated.

16.For the foregoing reasons, this petition is partly allowed and the impugned Advertisement to the extent it prescribes eligibility criteria inconsistent with the PMDC Regulations, 2025, is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to finalise the recruitment process, subject matter of this petition, for the post of Assistant Professor Neurosurgery on the basis of eligibility criteria contained in PMDC Regulations, 2025. It is clarified that the prescribed distribution of posts between initial recruitment and promotion shall remain unaffected.

Judge Approved for Reporting.

Judge

G.R.