Find a Lawyer

PAKISTAN COLLEGE OF LAW versus UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB

- Applicants, Scope and Examples "The theory of" Ejusdam Generis "-" Ejosodium Generis "took the stand that when a drafter attacked a certain chalet phrase, for example at the end of a countdown, for example" Dogs, cats, horses, livestock, and other animals, "then" other animals "had to be read just like other animals, after the same word" other "followed by similar additions -" other " Word - When a common word or phrase is listed next to the description, such common word or phrase will be interpreted only with the items of the same class, with [p 838] B.

P L D 2017 Lahore 830

Before Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, C.J., Shams Mahmood Mirza and Mudassir Khalid Abbas, JJ

PAKISTAN COLLEGE OF LAW—Petitioner

Versus

UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB and others—Respondents

Writ Petitions Nos.45178 of 2017, 40218 of 2016, 54945 and 47756 of 2017, decided on 10th August, 2017.

(a) Words and phrases—

—“Equivalent”—Meaning—“Equivalent” meant equal in value, amount, function or meaning. [p. 838] A

New Oxford American Dictionary, Third Edn. p.586 rel.

(b) Interpretation of statutes—

— “Ejusdem generis” doctrine of—Application, scope and illustration—“Ejusdem generis” postulated that when a drafter had tacked on a catchall phrase at the end of an enumeration of specifics, for example “dogs, cats, horses, cattle, and other animals, ” then “other animals” in the same was to be read as other similar animals, the same implied addition of the word “similar” after'the word “other”—When a general word or phrase followed a list of specifics, such general word or phrase would be interpreted to include only items of the same class as those listed, [p. 838] B

Antonin Scalia and Bryan A Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. 2012. p.199; Black's law Dictionary. 10th Edition, p.631; Mercantile Traders (Pvt.) Ltd. and another v. State Bank of Pakistan 2002 SCMR 250 and Jamat-i-Islami Pakistan through Syed Munawar Hassan, Secretary General v. Federation of Pakistn through Secretary Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs PLD 2000 SC 111 rel.

(c) Constitution of Pakistan—

—Arts. 142, 143 & 199—Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (XXXV of 1973) Ss. 55 & 56 —Pakistan Bar Council Legal Education Rules, 2015, R. 4—University of Punjab Admission Regulations 2016-2017, Regin. 24—Cooperative federalism—Overlap of legislative competence between Provinces and Federation—Educational

Institution—Public University—Legal education (LLB)—Admission criteria—Petitioner, which was an affiliated Law College of the

University of Punjab, impugned letters issued by the University, whereby students holding third division in their intermediate examinations, were denied admission to LLB, on the ground that students must hold at least a second division to be eligible for admission—Contention of petitioner inter alia was that R. 5 of Pakistan Bar Council Legal Education Rules, 2015, framed under Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 did not provide a minimum threshold of second division for LLB program, therefore, the University Regulations, framed under a Provincial Law, could not override the same—Validity—Regulation 24 of the University of Punjab Admission Regulations 2016-2017 included all Bachelors and Masters programs and ineligibility of students holding third division was clearly laid down by the University since the year 2011 and the petitioner, being an affiliated law college , was bound to follow such statutory requirement—Federal law on the subject, catered to all Provinces and set an overarching standard that addressed legal education across the country and Provincial legislature also enjoyed independent legislative space to legislate on legal education under the rubric of education but only to the extent of improving and enhancing the overarching, general, county wide standards in legal education set by the Federal Legislature—Such two powers had been reconciled on the principle of cooperative federalism and Provincial Legislature was free to improve upon standards set by the Federal legislature by setting more robust and stringent standards for admission in the Province—High Court further observed that the Provincial Legislature could not lower standards set by the Federal Legislature and held that the minimum eligibility threshold of second division for admission into LL.B imposed by the University was in accordance with the Constitution and the law—Constitutional petitions were dismissed, in circumstances. [pp. 839,846, 847] C, D, E & F

University of Health Science, Lahore through Vice Chancellor and others v. Arslan Ali and another 2016 SCMR 134; Muhammad Asif Khan v. Province of Sindh and others 2014 YLR 1038; Government of N.W.F.P., Health and Social Welfare Department through its Secretary v, Dr. Sheikh Muzaffar Iqbal and others 1990 SCMR 1321; Punjab Higher Education Commission v, Dr, Aurangzeb Alamgir and others PLD 2017 Lah, 489; Dr, Hassan Amir Shah v, Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary and 5 others 2012 PLC (C.S,) 290; Ch, Nazir Ahmad v, Government of Punjab and others PLD 2013 Lah. 621 and State of T.N. and another v. S,V, Bratheep (minor) and others 2004 (4) SCC 513 ret

Punjab Higher Education Commission v, Dr. Aurangzeb Alamgir and others PLD 2017 Lah. 489 and 2014 PTD 1939 rel.

PETITIONERS BY

Muhammad Afzal Khan for Petitioner.

Malik Asrar Elahi, Irfan Ahmad Wattoo vice Muhammad Safdar Shaheen Pirzada and Sohaib Ahmad Sidhu for Petitioners in connected writ petitions.

RESPONDENTS BY

Shan Gull, Anwar Hussain and Ahmad Hasan Khan, Addl. Advocate-General, Punjab.

Anwar Kamal, Advocate-Chairman Law Colleges Commission.

Malik Muhammad Awais Khalid, Advocate/Legal Advisor of the University of the Punjab, Lahore.

Raza Chohan, Director General, Higher Education Commission, Islamabad.

Nazeer Hussain, Director General, Higher Education Commission, Lahore.

Hamayun Rasheed, Law Officer, Higher Education Commisison.

ASSISTED BY

Mohsin Mumtaz, Civil Judge/Research Officer, Lahore High Court Research Centre (LHCRC).

Date of hearing: 10th August, 2017.

best advocate from Sadiqabad lawyer