Dr. MUHAMMAD NAEEM ASLAM vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Chief
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's intra-court appeal regarding the appointment of respondents as Senior Registrars in Cardiology. The petitioner contended that the High Court misread his constitutional petition by incorrectly stating that the issue of the respondents' lack of requisite specialization qualifications had not been raised. The petitioner argued that under a 1995 notification, specialized qualifications were mandatory, and alternative criteria were only applicable if no specialized candidates were available. The Supreme Court observed that the initial appointments occurred in 1998, and over ten years had elapsed since the respondents were appointed. Furthermore, the petitioner had since been promoted to the position of Senior Registrar Cardiology in the same institute. Consequently, the Court held that the validity of the initial appointments was no longer a live issue. Declining to engage in an academic exercise that would disturb rights accrued over a decade, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no substantial cause to warrant interference with the impugned judgment.
- Does the court interfere with initial appointments after a significant lapse of time when the issue is no longer a live controversy?
- Can a court decline to adjudicate a matter if it constitutes an academic exercise?
- Is a petitioner entitled to challenge the selection process of colleagues after being promoted to the same position?
ORDER
' TASSADUQ,HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.--- Leave is sought against the judgment, dated 20-2-2007 passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissing petitioner's intra-Court appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave on the ground that the impugned judgment of the learned Division Bench reflects misreading inasmuch as petitioner had specifically urged in the constitutional petition that the respondents were appointed as Senior Registrars Cardiology notwithstanding the fact that they did not have the requisite qualification of specialization in cardiology whereas the learned Judges fell in error in observing that, "we are afraid that the above ground has not been raised in the writ dilated upon by the learned single Judge in Chamber". Adds that in terms of notification, dated 10th of April, 1995, the primary qualification is in the respective specialty and it is only in the event of non-availability of such a candidate that the alternative threshold could be made available to the candidates concerned.
3. We have considered the submissions made.
4. Petitioner by way of Writ Petition No,3703 of 1998 had challenged the selection process/initial appointment of respondents Nos.6 to 9 as Senior Registrars, Cardiology in the Punjab Institute of Cardiology carried out by the Punjab Public Service Commission as far back as the year 1998. His constitutional petition was dismissed on 28-2-2001 and the intra-court appeal filed against the sa fate. More than 10 years have gone by since the respondents were appointed and it is not denied by petitioner's learned counsel that in the meanwhile petitioner has also been promoted as Senior Registrar Cardiology in the same institute.
5. In the afore-referred circumstances, we are afraid the issue of initial appointment is no longer a live issue and this Court may not like to carryout an academic exercise and interfere with the valuable rights which have accrued to the respondents. Hence, finding no substantial cause to warrant interference, this petition lacking in merit is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.