LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has observed that allowing exemption to holders of minor postgraduate diploma of Member of College of Physicians and Surgeons (MCPS) from the requirements of major diploma of Fellow of College of Physicians and Surgeons (FCPS) (Part-1) examination would amount to discrimination with other medical graduates, who have or likely to appear in FCPS Part-1 examination.

Justice Asim Hafeez observed this dismissing a set of petitions by the doctors having MCPS seeking exemption from the requirements of the FCPS Part-I examination.

Dr. Ummara Munir and other petitioners plead through counsel that they acquired the qualification of MCPS and sought exemption from requirements of FCPS Part-1, claiming that upon lapse of five years, after having the qualification of MCPS, they became eligible for the exemption.

The petitioners argue that the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) considers and acknowledges the qualification(s) of MCPS, being equivalent to M.Phil., therefore, in acknowledgment of such equivalence, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Pakistan (CPSP) shall also consider and acknowledge the equivalence of MCPS as M.Phil., for the purposes of allowing the exemption claimed by petitioners, in the disciple of “Forensic Medicine”.

MCPS medics’ pleas for exemption from FCPS exam criteria rejected

The petitioners requested for the grant of exemption from the requirements of FCPS Part-I but the CPSP declined their requests because of the change in the exemption rules.

The petitioners seek immunity from the application of revised exemption rules based on doctrine of legitimate expectation -- both procedural and substantive legitimate expectation.

However, in his verdict, Justice Hafeez has observed that neither the doctrine of procedural legitimate expectation nor substantive legitimate expectation is attracted in the instant case of the petitioners.

The judge notes that the petitioners made twofold submissions -- firstly, they claimed eligibility based on certificate(s) of recognition of experience, and secondly, sought protection against change in the exemption rules on the premise of doctrine of legitimate expectation.

But, the judge maintains, the petitioners failed on both counts.

He explains that the claim of eligibility was knocked down by the PMDC, which disowned issuance of equivalence certificate(s) and claim of legitimate expectation failed on merits, in the wake of the facts narrated and discussed.

“Hence, no vested right could be claimed to displace the effect of revised exemption rules,” Justice Hafeez adds.

The judge observes that if argument of the petitioners is accepted it would imply that every medical graduate, having acquired qualification of MCPS, even a day before the issuance of notification regarding revision of exemption rules, would continue to claim exemption from FCPS Part-I exams, under the doctrine of legitimate expectation, for next five years.

“This is absurd. This position, if acknowledged, would place unnecessary and unreasonable restraint/fetter on the power of the CPSP to modify/change the policies, claimed to be guided by overriding public interest,” he explains.

The judge says no purpose would be achieved by referring the matter to the PMDC or the CPSP, in the absence of fulfilment of relevant qualifications and changed circumstances – whereby the exemption rules were revised/changed.

He observes that the petitioners are still capable of acquiring fellowship qualification upon fulfilling requirements for FCPS Part-1, as prescribed in the impugned notification and notifications issued subsequently.

The judge observes that allowing exemption/walk-over to the petitioners from the requirements of FCPS Part-1 examination would otherwise be tantamount to discriminatory dispensation, putting other medical graduates, who have or likely to appear in FCPS Part-1 examination, in disadvantageous/unequal position.

The judge rules that the petitioners are required to prove legitimacy of expectation, purportedly resulting in frustration of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, but the same are unsuccessful.

Published in Dawn, May 2nd, 2023