1997 PLP 1925 (MLD)

This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.5944, 6602, 6601 and 6448 of 1993 in which common questions arise for determination.

2. The Punjab Public Service Commission through public notice appearing in the daily "Nation", Lahore invited applications for the posts of District Wildlife Officer. The qualification prescribed for the posts in question as given in the notice was "M.Sc. (Zoology) or B.Sc. Forestry 2nd Division". The petitioners who have obtained B.Sc. lions. Agriculture Major Forestry degrees from the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, applied for these posts but their applications were refused by the Commission on the ground that they did not possess the requisite qualification. This decision has been challenged by the petitioners by filing these petitions.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners have maintained that the qualification possessed by the petitioners viz., B.Sc. (lions.) Agriculture Major Forestry Range Management and Wildlife is higher than B. Sc. 'Forestry' 2nd Division degree which was one of qualifications prescribed in the notice. It has been pointed out that the University Grants Commission had on 29‑5‑1993 decided that the qualification held by the petitioners was equivalent to M. Sc. (Forestry). According to the learned counsel, the respondents themselves have been considering a candidate possessing B.Sc. (lions.) degree in Agriculture, Forestry Range Management and Wildlife to be qualified to be appointed as Wildlife Officer and their refusal in the present cases was unwarranted.

4. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab has, however, submitted that according to the policy of the Government, only the candidates possessing the prescribed qualification and its equivalent are eligible for selection. Reliance has been placed by him upon circular dated 16‑8‑1989 issued by the Government of the Punjab to all the administrative departments in support of this contention.

5. It is true that in the public notice issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission the qualification mentioned was M.Sc. (Zoology) or B.Sc. 'Forestry' 2nd Division, It is also correct that the petitioners do not possess either of the two degrees mentioned above, but in view of the decision of the University Grants Commission it cannot be disputed that the degree held by the petitioners viz., B.Sc. (lions.) Agriculture Forestry Range Management and Wildlife (Major) and M.Sc. (.lions.) Agriculture Range Management is a qualification higher than B.Sc. (Forestry) and is equivalent to M.Sc. (Forestry). The letter addressed by the University Grants Commission to University of Agriculture, Faisalabad reads as under:‑‑‑ "Equivalence of B.Sc. (lions.) degree in Agri. (Major Forestry) awarded by Agri. University with M.Sc. Forestry of Pakistan Forest Instt. was considered. The Committee also examined comparative charts of courses of studies of both degrees and deserved that B.Sc. (lions.) Agri. ' (Major Forestry), was a professional degree in the filed as such degree‑holders are competent to compete for jobs with M.Sc. (Forestry) degree‑holders in relevant field. It was, therefore, decided to equate B.Sc. (lions.) Agri. (Major Forestry) 4 years' degree awarded after F.Sc. as equivalent to M.Sc. (Forestry)."

6. The University Grants Commission has been set up under the University Grant Commission Act, 1974 and section 13(1)(d) whereof provides setting up equivalence committee. The decision taken by such a body, besides having legal force, deserves highest respect in view of the nature of its composition.

7. It is not disputed by the respondents that the qualification possessed by the petitioner is higher or at least equivalent to the prescribed qualification. Their case, however, is that the eligibility of a candidate depends upon possession of prescribed degree and not its equivalent. The rationale behind this insistence is not understandable and to say the least, smacks of arbitrariness. The only reason given in the memorandum dated 16‑8‑1989 for issuing such instructions is that it becomes difficult to determine the equivalence. It is unfortunate that while so opining the respondents failed to appreciate that in law the grant of equivalence is primarily a function of the University Grants Commission which is a statutory body established by the University Grants, Commission Act, 1974. Once a qualification had been declared to be equivalent to another qualification by such a body, rejection of the application of the petitioners by the respondents would clearly be arbitrary and caparious. The question of difficulty in determining equivalence does not arise in these cases.

8. It is correct that power to prescribe qualification vests in the Government but the denial of opportunity to compete in the selection to a person who has been certified as possessing equivalent qualification is clearly violative of Articles 16 and 25 of the Constitution. It is axiomatic that in law powers vesting in public functionaries must be exercised for good of people and in a fair, and just manner. There should not be an element of arbitrariness. The prescription of a qualification is obviously meant for ensuring that only qualified candidates are allowed to compete. If a candidate possesses a qualification considered equivalent by a statutory body of experts, it does not lie with the Government to refuse to give effect to that decision merely on the basis of administrative inconvenience.

9. The contention of the learned counsel that the respondents themselves in the past have been considering the qualification possessed by the petitioners as making them eligible for selection to the post of District Wildlife Officer is supported by the parawise comments submitted by the respondents in W.P. No.8191 of 1990; In face of this clear admission, the volte face taken by the respondents cannot be appreciated. Once having taken a positive stand before this Court, it does not behove at least the Government which is not an ordinary litigant to take somersault. In these circumstances, the refusal of the Punjab Public Service Commission to allow the petitioners to participate in the selection was clearly against law. In view of what has been stated above, these petitions are allowed; the refusal of the respondents to allow the petitioners to participate in the selection' is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the purposes of selection to the post in question. No order as to costs A.A./Z‑19/L Petition accepted.