Dr. Farhad Ali etc vs KPK PSC

Judgment Sheet

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR,

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.

Writ Petition 2741-P/2015.

Dr. Farhad Ali and others ......VS..... KPK Public Service Commission, through Chairman, 2 Fort Road, Peshawar and others.

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing..........11.02.2016.....................................

Petitioner(s) by......Mr. Asif Ali Shah, advocate..................

Respondent (s) by... Mr. Umar Farooq Adam, AAG.............

ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN.J:- Through this single

judgment we propose to decide the following writ petitions as common questions of law and fact are involved in the same:

i. Writ Petition 2741-P/2015 (Dr. Farhad Ali and others VS KPK Public Service Commission, through Chairman, 2 Fort Road, Peshawar and others.)

ii. Writ Petition 2954-P/2015 (Dr. Shahid Khan VS KPK Public Service Commission, through Chairman, 2 Fort Road, Peshawar and others.)

iii. Writ Petition 2955-P/2015 (Dr. Inam Ullah Wazir VS KPK Public Service Commission, through Chairman, 2 Fort Road, Peshawar and others.)

iv. Writ Petition 2693-P/2015 (Muhammad Imran Khan VS KPK Public Service Commission, through Chairman, 2 Fort Road, Peshawar and others.)

v. Writ Petition 3205-P/2015 (Dr. Hassan Fahim and others VS KPK Public Service Commission, through Chairman, 2 Fort Road, Peshawar and others.)

2.As per averments of the writ petitions, the petitioners, in pursuance of the advertisement published by the Public Service Commission submitted applications on the prescribed Form for competing against the post of veterinary officer (health). Being

eligible and qualified for the post, their applications were considered and entertained by the Public Service Commission. They were allowed to appear in written examination and were declared successful, thus their names were placed on senior part of the merit list of their respective zones, however to their utter dismay, they were taken aback through the impugned letter dated 4.7.2015 by making disheartening remarks to the effect that they cannot be called for interview because of not possessing the Pakistan Veterinary Medical Council registration. Hence these petitions.

3.Initially comments were called for from the respondents which were filed accordingly, wherein the claim of petitioners was refuted on the ground that the petitioners were not possessing the requisit

qualification, on the closing date of the advertisement, therefore, were not eligible to be called for interview.

4.The learned counsel for petitioners

vehemently contended that the petitioners are degree holder of DVM from KPK, Agriculture University, Peshawar and University of Veterinary and Animal Science Lahore, Pakistan and had submitted application for their registration with PVMC before the closing date of advertisement, but the same could not be issued in time by the concerned quarter. He further argued that the petitioners applications were duly considered by the Public Service commission and after combing search scrutiny of the documents, they were allowed to participate in the written examination. The petitioners have qualified the written examination and have secured the better merit position. Thus at such a belated

stage, rejection of their candidature and that too on flimsy gound i.e. non-production of PVMC registration, is illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

5.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record would reveal that in pursuance of advertisement published by the Public Service Commision, the petitioners have applied for appointment as Veterinary Officer-BPS-17, in the Livestock and Dairy Development Department. The advertisement postulates the following minimum required qualification for the post in question:

“Doctor of veterinary Medicine (DVM)

or equivalent qualification in Veterinary Sciences from a recognized University and registered with Pakistan Veterinary

Medical Council (PVMC)” (emphasis

supplied)

6.Though the petitioners are equipped with a degree of Doctor of veterinary medicine however, they are not registered with PVMC, which is basic requirement for appearance in the examination for the post of veterinary officer.

7.So far the arguments of learned counsel for petitioners regarding appearance and qualifying the written test is concerned, suffice it to say that Public Service Commission Regulation 2003 does not prescribe written examination for selection against the post of veterinary officer, however for decreasing the number of candidate to bring it in to a manageable size, the Public Service Commission may hold a screening/written test in the relevant field or general

knowledge. Success in the screening/written test shall not confer a right on candidate to be invited for viva voce, if he/she is lacking the requisite qualification.

Para-19 of KPK Public Service Commission Regulation 2003 provides that only the qualification possessed by the candidate on the closing date of the application fixed for the inland candidate shall be taken into consideration.

8.It is the requirement of application Form for recruitment through Public Service Commission that the candidate shall satisfy the commission about his/her eligibility for competing for the relevant post, otherwise the applicant be ignored. Though the petitioners are degree holder in veterinary medicine, but unless they got registered with the regulatory body i.e.

Pakistan Veterinary Medical Council, would not be

eligible and entitle to hold any veterinary position in private or public sector. Without registration by Veterinary Council, no person can use or publish with his name any title, observation, description or symbol indicating to lead the people that he/she possesses any veterinary qualification or degree. From the above, it is manifest that for recruitment against the public or private post relating to the veterinary, the registration with PVMC is mandatory which is lacking in these cases. Admittedly the petitioners were not registered with PVMC on the closing date, therefore, the production of required certificate after due date shall not be taken into consideration by the Public Service Commission. Similarly Para-12 of the Regulation 2003 providess that a call for examination/written test/interview/viva voce shall formally be sent to

eligible candidates only, whose applications are found to be complete in all respects. However, in case of large number of applications for the post, screening test may be held without first holding scrutiny of applications, but once the shortlist of candidates is identified, the applications of such candidates will be scrutinized before proceeding further. If found ineligible in scrutiny such candidates shall not be called for interview even if they qualify the test. Though the petitionrs have qualified ability test, however, on scrutiny of their documents/application forms it was found that the petitioners were not registered with PVMC which is a required qualification under the rule provided in the advertisement. Hence the commission by rejecting candidature of the petitioners have committed no illegality or irregularity. It is requirement of the law that

a thing should be done in the manner in which it is required to be done not otherwise. When the registration with Pakistan Veterinary Medical Council is pre requisite for the post of veterinary officer, then the petitioners have to produce the same before the closing date of filing application for the post. Besides similar controversy cropped up before this Court in writ petition No. 951-A/2015 which was set at naught vide judgement dated 6.10.2015, the transcription of the relevant para of the same is reproduced below:

“The stance of petitioner in the instant writ petition is that despite possessing registration certificate, properly issued by PVMC on 06.03.2014, he was not

called for interview; but the record

suggests otherwise, as the petitioner was not in possession of the requisite

certificate from PVMC at the relevant

time and thus not eligible for the post on the basis of the certificate issued

subsequently on 06.03.2014.”

9.The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal No. 536/2013 case titled “Chairman Public Service Commission KPK Vs Aftab Qadir” while dilating upon similar controversy was pleased to rule that the candidate apart from his medical education qualification should have completed one year house job training for appearance and competing for the post of medical officer BPS-17. In case of none completion of one year house job training on the closing date, the candidate shall not be considered to apply for the job particularly when in the advertisement it had clearly

been stated that the candidate should make sure that they are eligible for the post in all respect.

10.In foregoing circumstances we find that the Public Service Commission while rejecting candidature has properly appreciated the law and rule on the subject. Resultantly, these petitions being bereft of merit stand dismissed with no order as to cost.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Announced on;

11th of February, 2016.