Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.1815 of 1984, decided on 4th July, 1984.

--S.10 Educational institutions Admission to Engineering University--Recognition of qualifications Candidate seeking admission against seats reserved for children of Graduate Engineers--Petitioner's father not graduate from University but Associate Member of Institute of Engineering (Pakistan)--Qualifications not equivalent to Degree in Engineering for academic purposes but equivalent thereto for purposes of professional services--Entitlement of petitioner denied and his choice as Engineer's son ignored on ground that father was not graduate engineer--Order challenged in writ jurisdiction--Held: Degree of University having been recognised as equivalent to AMIE (Pakistan) and Equivalent Committee having equated graduation of Institute of Engineers with that of University for purposes of professional services, University authorities erred in holding that academic equalization of degree was required for purpose of admission--Impugned order declared to be without lawful authority.--[Educational institutions].

W.P. No.566 of 1984 distinguished.

Ch. Muhammad Iqbal for Petitioner.

Sajjad Hussain for Respondents Nos.1and 2.

A.K. Dogar for Respondent No.3.

Date of hearing: 4th July, 1984.

The petitioner, who obtained 684 marks, including 20 for N . C . C . , applied for admission to the Bachelor degree course 1983-84 of the respondent-University on 15th August, 1983. He noted therein various preferences under two categories of eligibility i.e. 'A' category (General Merit) and 'N' category as Engineer's son. His case is that the respondent No.1 ignored 6th choice for Mechanical Engineering under 'N' category and instead took up his 12th choice concerning Chemical Engineering under 'A' category and granted admission therein.

2. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 states that, the father of the petitioner is not a graduate of the University of Engineering Lahore or any other University and, therefore, not entitled to be considered under 'N' category. According to him graduation of the Institute of the Engineers, Pakistan, is not an academic qualification and so has not been recognised by the University for the purpose of 'M' category. He places reliance on the approved recommendations of the Equivalence Committee dated 27th December; 1982, which read as under:

"It was decided that sections A & B of the Associate Membership Examinations of the Institute of Engineers, Pakistan may not be considered equivalent to B.Se. Engineering Degree for academic purposes but may not be considered equivalent to B.Sc. Engineering Degree for purposes of professional services in Engineering Department/ Organization."

It will be seen that the Equivalence Committee has equated the graduation of the Institute of Engineers with that of the University for Provincial Service for the purpose of professional services. In the case in hand, it is the petitioner who was relying his father's degree for the purpose of admission and not the father asking for any further academic pursuits in the University. In that view of the matter, the respondent No.1 erred in holding that it is the academic equalization of the degree which was required for the purpose of admission.

3. In any case, the contention of the learned counsel is not borne out from para.41.13 at page 128 of the Prospectus concerning eligibility under 'N' category. It reads as under:

"41.13. Candidates seeking admission for Bachelor's Degree Course against seats reserved for children of Graduate Architects, City & Regional Planners and Engineers will be grouped separately and will be admitted against the reserved seats on merits from amongst themselves. The candidate shall furnish a photostat copy of the Degree of his/her father/mother duly attested by a Class 'I' Gazetted Officer or Class 'A' Officer of the University of Engineering & Technology, Lahore. The candidates must also fulfil the requirements of subsection 41.1."

Admittedly, the father of the petitioner is an Engineer and according to his certificate, copy annexure 'D', he is a graduate member of the Institute. Para.41.13 also talks of graduate engineers. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the requirement of production of the degree means that father should be a graduate degree holder. The plea raised, however, is not sound. Had the intention been to confine this concession to the sons of B.Sc. Engineers, it would have been made specifically clear that it is meant for persons holding Bachelor Degree or Engineering Degree from a University. That has not been done. The expression used is in general and not restricted sense. If the University had intended to have that distinction as is being pressed, it would not have used the general expression.

4. The above finding is supported by section 10 of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act which reads as under:-

"10. Recognition of engineering qualifications granted by institutions in Pakistan.--(1) The engineering qualifications granted by engineering institutions in Pakistan which are included in the First Schedule shall be the recognised engineering qualifications for the purposes of this Act.

(2) Any engineering institution in Pakistan which grants an engineering qualification not included in the First Schedule may apply to the Council to have such qualification recognised and the Council may, by notification in the official Gazette, amend the first Schedule so as to include such qualification therein."

The first schedule mentions the names of all the Engineering Universities and alongside it the name of Institute of Engineers Pakistan is also given at serial No.7. Thus the degree of a University is recognised as equivalent to AMIE (Pak.).

5. The learned counsel for the respondents then referred to a decision of this Court in W.P. No.566/84 and stated that as no relief was granted to that petitioner in a similar case there, this petition is also liable to be dismissed. The contention, however, has no merit. The petitioner in that case had submitted two separate applications without expressing as to which one should be given preference. In that situation, one of his applications was allowed and he was given admission in Chemical Engineering in Category 'A'. He, therefore, came to this Court to state that his other application made under Category 'N' should have been given preference. That however, was not the case, as he had never stated that which one of the application should be considered first. This Court, therefore, rejected his request saying that there was nothing which should be termed as without lawful authority. The present case is entirely different. His application which is a composite one gives a sequence of the choices or preferences. The respondent No.1 has not acted accordingly in his case and while it omitted to consider his 6th preference, it proceeded straight to 12th. The case of the petitioner is, therefore, entirely different and cannot be equated with the one cited above.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 then submitted that as respondent No.3 has also been admitted under category 'N' with marks less than the petitioner, he has to go out. Its seats are limited. I am, however, sorry to say that the respondent cannot ask for such a relief. The respondents 1 and 2 willfully omitted to consider the merit of the petitioner under his sixth preference. In that situation, the admission of the respondent was valid. I am told that he has already attended the classes for six months and it will, therefore, be quite hard on him to pass an order against him for no fault of his.

7. In view of the fact that admittedly the petitioner was entitled to be admitted on his sixth choice in Mechanical Engineering in category 'N', the order admitting him in Chemical Engineering under Category 'A' is declared to be without lawful authority. He shall, therefore, be admitted in Mechanical Engineering in pursuance of his application.. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

M.I. /3518/L Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.