1992 PLP 2142 (CLC)

(1) Pakistan Criminal Law Journal, 1980, P‑2917‑Mizar and others v. Amir Khan (2) PLD 1980 Quetta 55 Sardar Sawal Khan v. Gul Baran Khan Coal Company. (3) PLD 1982 Quetta, P/87 PMDC v. Amir Khan (4) PLD 1982 Quetta, P/103, Meher Gul v. M.B.R. (5) PLD 1986 Quetta P/185 and other cases.

8. The above qualifications by themselves are not in my opinion sufficient to prove " that the appellant falls within the definition of "professional as defined in the law mentioned above. In the appeal of Mr. Muhammad Anwar Durrani, Advocate, while considering a similar question I had rejected his appeal inter alia observing in paras.6.7,8 and 9 of that judgment which are as follows:‑

"

6. It will be seen from the abovementioned qualifications and skills that the appellant is a practising advocate for the last 15 years and he is practising in the High Court since last 13 years as stated at the bar. But the First question for consideration is whether he is a person of distinction as required by the provisions of section 5 of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977. In this regard Mr. Tariq Mehmood pointed out that the following important positions held by the appellant, as mentioned in the nomination form are:‑

(1) Legal Advisor as Special Assistant to the Care‑taker Chief Minister of Balochistan, with the status of Provincial Minister from August 1990 to November, 1990. (2) Legal Advisor as Special Assistant to the Chief Minister of Balochistan with the status of Provincial Minister front April 1989 to August 1990. (3) General Secretary, Balochistan Bar Association (1989‑90) (4) Vice‑President, Balochistan Bar Association (1981‑83) (5) General Secretary, Balochistan Bar Association (1980‑81) (6) The judgment in one case in which he appeared was reported in Pakistan Legal Decisions. (7) He wrote an article entitled "BACHOAN KAY HAQOOQ KA QANOONI TASAWUR."

7. In the case Dr. Syed Farooq Hasan and others v. Mumtaz Ahmad Khan and others‑ (PLD 1988 SC 237 p. 255), Mr. Justice Shaflur Rahman agreed with the view of the Tribunal with regard to a 'person of distinction' in the following words:‑‑ "I am quite clear in my mind that Tribunal correctly held that Mr. Mumtaz Ahmad Khan was not a person of distinction in the field of journalism in the country and on that account could not be elected to the Senate on a reserved seat for Ulema, Professionals and Technocrats."

8. It may be pertinent if the view of the Tribunal is also quoted here:‑ "In my view 'a person of distinction' does not refer to an above average person or even a person who can be described as 'good' or ,very good' in his field. When reference is made to an individual as a person of distinction, it connotes a person of eminence or excellence in his field; an individual of exceptional qualities and attainments placing him much above the above‑average, the good and the very good; a person who has been honoured or recogniscd by his community or country or internationally for achievements in any field; a person who is among the top people in his profession. To name a few individuals who can be described as men of distinction without any reservations, one can mention Quaid‑i‑A7am in the field of politics; Allama Iqbal as a poet and philosopher; late Mr. Manzoor Qadir, Mr‑A.K.Brohi and Mr. Mahmud Ali Qasuri and several others in the legal profession; Imran Khan and Jehangir Khan in the field of sports. Then there are and can be many others who have attained or achieved eminence or excellence in special fields..."

9. If I "examine the case on the touchstone of the above criteria I rind that the petitioner has not been able to satisfy that he is a person of distinction on the basis of his qualifications and what he has stated in the Annexure to the nomination paper and mentioned hereinbefore. At the most on the basis of so‑called achievements as narrated by him he may have acquired some prominence in bar but not distinction either in his profession or as a person."

9. Order passed in Mr. Muhammad Anwar Durrani Advocate's case was questioned in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Balochistan High Court in Constitution Petition No.CP‑60/91. The Division Bench of the High Court consisting of Mr. Justice Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry upheld the order and while doing so observed as follows:‑ "

9. In order to prove this requirement of law, it was incumbent upon him to show high performance of his calibre, achievement and competency in the profession of law, so he could have placed himself at a high pedestal, comparing to other members of profession. He also does not possess any other professional qualification, which is recognized nationally or internationally, merely obtaining the degree of law and getting himself enrolled as an Advocate, is not sufficient to satisfy this condition; in this context, no material is available on record to prove his special qualification in the field of law, on the basis of which he was recognized nationally or internationally. Similarly no iota of evidence was produced before us to point out his practical experience at a high level in a special area of knowledge and there is also no indication on record to show that he was practising in special field of law. It may be observed that the Constitution has created reserved seats for Professionals in the Highest Legislative Body i.e. Senate, therefore a candidate who has just qualified an examination would not be able to represent at his class of profession effectively. The Hon'able Supreme Court has considered this legal proposition in case of Farooq Hussain v. Mumtaz Ahmad reported in PLD 1988 SC page

237. Relevant portion at page 253 is reproduced below:‑

"The reservation made for a distinct professional or occupational group on the highest legislative body or the country is an exception and a special provision which has to be interpreted strictly and only those who satisfy the conditions of competence, of qualification, or experience and of standing as prescribed in the law can be held eligible. There can be no relexation of the requirement, no dilution, no mitigation in the requirement of the law."

10. The petitioner has not demonstrated before us anything to show that due to extraordinary eminence and excellency or efficiency in field of law, he has made remarkable performance amongst the members of legal fertility which had made him a person of distinction and due to outstanding credentials in his favour in the rank of Advocates, he has placed himself at a high level.

11. As field of law is vast field and there arc many branches of law, thus any person who is putting himself as a candidate in Senate against reserved seat for professional, he 'has to point out about his achievements, research work etc. in order to bring himself within the definition of professional. The high knowledge of law should also be of such a category which is recognized nationally and internationally, as for instance, in our country we can refer to many eminent jurists like late A.K. Brohi and Mahmud Ali Kasuri. They were prominent in the profession as they had made full justification in the profession with their job, resulting in production of creative and research work which is recognition of their high knowledge in special area of law.

12. Although an Advocate had the knowledge of law, but to prove himself as professional, he has to prove an extraordinary competency in the field of law. In absence of such like thing, no relexation can be given to anyone, we should keep in our mind that compromise in relaxing the requirement of law, in fact would amount to circumvent the status of institution of Senate which is a highest legislative body in the country.

13. Indeed to be a member of Senate against reserved seat of professional itself is a matter of great pride and privilege and before assuming such high office one should prove his talent and knowledge by making himself a distinctive person than the others."

10. As regards the question of discretion it is not within my jurisdiction to consider the same. It is for the legislature.

11. Respectfully following the judgment of Balochistan High Court I uphold the order of the Returning Officer and dismiss the appeal. AA/67/CER Appeal dismissed.