Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • PMC VS Medical Tribunal of Pakistan

    Uploaded by

    AdvAleem Khan
    16 views4 pages

    Original Title

    PMC VS MEDICAL TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    16 views4 pages

    PMC VS Medical Tribunal of Pakistan

    Uploaded by

    AdvAleem Khan

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 4
    IN THE HONOURABLE I BAD HIGH ‘T, ISLAMABAD (Constitutional Jurisdiction) Writ Petition No. _\Y 2X pron ot private 1. PAKISTAN MEDICAL COMMISSION, through its Secretary, G-10 Mauve Atea, G-10/4, Islamabad, 241 NOV 20; Ex apy Sung’y Section 2, Ms, SAIRA RUBAB NASIR, Member Legal of Pakistan Medical Commgaigiaciol Name ouct Area, G-10/4, Ishimabad ‘ ..-Petitioners Versus |. MEDICAL TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN, through its Registrar, G-10 Markaz, G-10, Islamabad. 2, SYED IMTIAZ HASAN, S/O Syed Shahid Hasan, resident of House No.13, Street No. 163, Sector G-13/3, Islamabad Respondents WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973 The petitioner submits as follows: PARTIES i 1. The respective addresses of the parties specified in the head notes of this Petition suffice for the puxposes of notices to the pasties 2. Petitioner No. | is a statutory regulator, constituted under the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020, (“PMC Act”) for the medical profession, establishing uniform standards of basic and higher medical education, and for tecognition of qualifications ia medicine and dentistry Petitioner No. 2 is current y holy ORDER SHEET. ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABA! JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. W.P.No.4302/2022 Pakistan Medical Commission and another Vs. Medical Tribunal of Pakistan and another 'S. No. of order! | Date of order! Order with signature of Judge and that of proceedings | Proceedings parties or counsel where necessary. _| 18.11.2022 Ms. Zainab Janjua, Advocate for the petitioners. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners impugn the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the Medical Tribunal of Pakistan (“M.T.P.”), whereby the proceedings for contempt of Court have been initiated against petitioner No.2. This order was passed after respondent No.2, on 01.11.2022 had informed the M.T.P. as to the corrected license having been issued by the Pakistan Medical Commission (“P.M.C.”). The record shows that Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (“P.M. & D.C.”) had issued a license to practice to respondent No.2 on 05.08.1985 which was valid up to 31.12.2020. One of respondent No.2’s qualifications listed in the said license was Ph.D. (Pathology). Prior to the expiry of the said license, respondent No.2 applied to the P.M.C. for its renewal. Although the said license was renewed on 05.03.2022, but it was only for M.B.B.S. (basic medical qualification). The renewed license did not list Ph.D. (Pathology) as “one of respondent No.2’s qualifications. fang “The said act of the P.M.C. not to include "s the said qualification in respondent No.’ license was on the basis of the decision taken by the P.M.C. in its 2"! meeting held on 16.10.2020. For the purposes of clarity, W.P.Ne 4302/2022 the said decision is reproduced herein below:- “As per law and the policy only clinical qualifications of licensed practitioners are to be endorsed on a practitioner’s license in the future. For any academic qualification to be verified, the same should be verified from HEC or the granting authority as the case may be.” Aggrieved by the non-mentioning of the qualification of Ph.D. (Pathology) in his renewed license, respondent No.2 filed an appeal before the M.T.P., which was disposed of vide order dated 16.12.2021, whereby the matter was referred to the Council. The Disciplinary Committee of the P.M.C. vide order dated 13.01.2022 turned down respondent No.2’s representation to include Ph.D. (Pathology) as his qualification in the renewed license. This caused respondent No.2 to prefer a second appeal before the M.T.P. During the pendency of the said appeal, the Council was de-notified on 19.08.2022 and a new Council was notified on 06.09.2022. The new Council in its meeting held on 27.09.2022 decided to include non-clinical qualification of practitioners in their licenses. The policy decision to the said effect was also published. As a result of this, respondent No.2’s license was renewed with Ph.D. (Pathology) being efegntioned a his qualification. The M.T.P. wae? duly informed about the same on 01.11.2022, but despite the same, the Fhe. decided to initiate the contempt “

    You might also like