PLC(CS) 2012

2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

REHANA TASLEEM Versus DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, LAYYAH/CHAIRMAN RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE, LAYYAH and 5 others

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore High Court
Decided Date
Writ Petitions Nos.9835 and 5306 of 2010, decided on 21st April, 2011.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Khalid Mehmood Khan, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Lahore High Court
Bench Members Muhammad Khalid Mehmood Khan, J
Parties REHANA TASLEEM Versus DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, LAYYAH/CHAIRMAN RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE, LAYYAH and 5 others
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Khalid Mehmood Khan, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (REHANA TASLEEM Versus DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, LAYYAH/CHAIRMAN RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE, LAYYAH and 5 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan

Representation

  • Ch. Pervaiz Akhter Gujjar for Petitioner.
  • Muhammad Shoaib Khan Buzdar for Respondents.
  • Muhammad Javed Saeed Pirzada, Asstt. A.-G. Punjab with Salma Shahi Deputy D.E.O. for Respondent.
  • Ahsan Raza Hashmi, Advocate.
  • 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Skill Development Council was established under National Training Ordinance, 1980 which was amended vide Ordinance II of 2002 and, as such, petitioners have obtained the diploma from a institution established under the Act or Ordinance and, as such, it is not relevant whether HEC recognized the said institution or not. Petitioners fulfil the basic requirement of post that they are having diploma in physical education and, as such, the refusal on the part of respondents is against the fundamental rights of petitioners.
  • The argument of learned counsel for petitioner that Skill Development Council is established under Ordinance, 1980 and as such enjoy the status of institution, but it does not mean that this council has the authority to issue certificate to the private colleges or institutions for imparting physical education unless the institution is recognized by HEC or any recognized University. According to law, HFC is the authority to give certificate or approve affiliation of colleges for imparting education all over the Pakistan. No doubt, petitioners are having the diploma of physical education but from the unrecognized institution.

Headnotes / Summary

Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Civil service

Appointment

Petitioners, who were holding Diploma in Physical Education from 'Skill Development Counsel Islamabad' applied for the post of Senior Elementary School Educator (Physical), were refused to issue interview calls on the ground that issuer institution of diploma, was not a recognized Institution by Higher Education Commission

Qualification required for post concerned, was B.A., with Junior Diploma in Physical Education or Higher Professional qualifications from the concerned institution

Petitioners, though had qualification of M.A., along with diploma in physical education from Skill Development Council, but said council was not authorized to impart physical education courses

Higher Education Commission was to approve the courses and the institution for imparting the education in different subjects

Physical Education, was an independent subject and in Punjab only two colleges i.e. Government Gulberg College and Government College Township, which offered Physical Education, were approved by Higher Education Commission

Petitioners had the Diploma of Physical Education, but from the unrecognized institution

Petitioners, in circumstances, had rightly been refused the call letters or to accept them for the post in question. Ahsan Raza Hashmi, Advocate.

Judgment & Decree

MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.

Through this single order; I propose to decide two writ petitions i.e. W.P.No.9835 of 2010 and W.P.No.5306 of 2010 as the same question of law is involved in both the writ petitions.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, petitioners applied for the post of SESE (physical) in District Layyah for different schools; petitioners submitted their applications as they were holding diploma in physical education from Skill Development Council, Islamabad; petitioners were refused to issue interview calls; petitioners submitted applications to respondent No.3 along with educational documents but the respondent refused to accept the diploma granted by Skill Development Council established under National Training Ordinance, 1980 on the ground that issuer institution of diploma is not a recognized institution by the HEC; petitioners through the present writ petitions have prayed that respondent be directed to issue appointment letter to them for the post of Senior Elementary School Educator (Physical) as advertised by them accepting their diploma at par with the other institutions.

3. Notices were issued to respondents who submitted report and parawise comments; they taken the stance that for SESE (Physical) post required educational qualification is as under:

"BA with junior diploma in physical Education or higher professional qualification from a concerned institution"

4. The diploma in physical education is being offered by Government Gulbarg College and Government College Town Ship, Lahore which are the institutions approved by HEC; they operate under the umbrella of University of Punjab; diploma of Skill Development Council is not valid for the post of SESE (Physical Education); Skill Developments not recognized by HEC, nor the Government of Punjab has recognized the institution issuing diplomas; diploma obtained by petitioner does not fulfil the requirements of advertised posts.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Skill Development Council was established under National Training Ordinance, 1980 which was amended vide Ordinance II of 2002 and, as such, petitioners have obtained the diploma from a institution established under the Act or Ordinance and, as such, it is not relevant whether HEC recognized the said institution or not. Petitioners fulfil the basic requirement of post that they are having diploma in physical education and, as such, the refusal on the part of respondents is against the fundamental rights of petitioners.

6. Learned A.A.-G. submits that petitioners while applying for the posts themselves have admitted that the posts were offered to the persons who have diploma in physical education. The diploma in physical education is being granted by two colleges at Lahore and these colleges alone are recognized by HEC.

7. Heard, record perused.

8. The respondents advertised various posts along with the post of SESE (physical). The petitioners applied for the post of SESE (Physical) and qualification requires for the said post was BA with Junior Diploma in Physical Education or Higher Professional Qualification from the concerned institution. The petitioners having qualification of MA Islamic Studies and MA Punjabi respectively along with diploma in physical education from Skill Development Council, Punjab. The Skill Development Council Punjab is not authorized to impart physical education courses. It is the Higher Education Commission who approves the courses and the institution for imparting the education in different subjects. Physical education is an independent subject and admittedly in Punjab only two colleges are regulating this subject. These two colleges are working under University of Punjab and their certificates/diplomas have been approved by the HEC. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner that Skill Development Council is established under Ordinance, 1980 and as such enjoy the status of institution, but it does not mean that this council has the authority to issue certificate to the private colleges or institutions for imparting physical education unless the institution is recognized by HEC or any recognized University. According to law, HFC is the authority to give certificate or approve affiliation of colleges for imparting education all over the Pakistan. No doubt, petitioners are having the diploma of physical education but from the unrecognized institution.

9. The condition precedented for the post offered was that candidates should have the diploma in physical education. The advertisement is very clear that as per clause 15 of the advertisement it is specifically mentioned as under:--

10. This clause is specifically shows that it was the condition of the employment offered; that candidates should be equipped with the diploma in physical education granted by the registered charted university or institution recognized by the Higher Education. The petitioners admittedly are not having the diploma from recognized institution or university and, as such, the respondents have rightly refused them to issue call letter or to accept them for the post advertised.

11. In view of above, both the petitions (W.P.No.9835 of 2010 and W.P.No.5306 of 2010) fail and are dismissed. H.B.T./R-46/L Petitions dismissed.