2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ABDUL LATIF and others Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others
| Citation | 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Farrukh Lateef, J, |
| Parties | ABDUL LATIF and others Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Farrukh Lateef, J,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ABDUL LATIF and others Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Shabbir Langrial for Petitioners.
- Tariq Murtaza Malizai for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Appointment on posts of S.S. Educators
Qualification for
Qualification for appointment on post of S.S. Educators, as per the advertisement was M.A./M.Sc. and in addition thereto professional qualifications like M.Ed., M.A.Ed., M.S.Ed., B.S. Ed.
Candidates in circumstances, should have possessed on Academic Decree of M.A. or M.Sc. and a professional degree as well
Candidates did not possess degree of M.A. or M.Sc. as one of them possessed B.A. Degree while others possessed B.Sc. Degrees
Candidates though possessed requisite professional degrees of M.A. Ed. but requirement for post applied by them was that of an academic degree of M.A., M.Sc. which they did not possess
Candidates could not be deemed to possess requisite qualifications for the post applied for by them-- Direction could not be issued by High Court to Authorities to consider the candidates qualifications fit for the posts they had applied for.
Judgment & Decree
2. It is contended by their counsel that the respondents are not treating their degrees of M.A. Ed. and M.Ed. equivalent to M.A. in spite of the fact that those have been declared to the equivalent by the University Grants Commission and the Ministry of Education vide Notification Annex-C and C.1.
3. Grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of being qualified for the post applied for by them, they are not being interviewed and considered. Prayer in the writ petition is that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the petitioners qualification fit for the post and they be interviewed.
4. Petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Arguments heard; writ petition and its annexures perused.
5. According to para. 6 of the writ petition, the petitioners are candidates for the post of S.S. Educators. In advertisement Annex-A, qualification for the said post is M.A./M.Sc. and in addition thereto professional qualification like (M.Ed., M.A.Ed. M.S. Ed., B.S. Ed.) meaning thereby that the candidate should possess an academic degree i.e. E M.A. or M.Sc. and a professional degree as well which are mentioned above.
6. Annex-C and C.1, do not support the claim of the petitioners that. degree of M.A. and M.Ed have been declared equivalent to M.A. or M.Sc.
7. Notification C.1, does not speak of any Academic Degree like M.A. or M.Sc. and it is in respect of only professional degrees viz M.A.Ed, M.Ed., M.Ed. Technical., M.A. Technical Education (Industrial Arts)., M.B.E., M.Ed. Tech (Business), M.S. Ed., M.Ed. (Science) and it is stated that all the aforesaid degrees are equivalent:
8. According to notification Annex-C, B.S. Ed., and M.S. Ed. and M.Ed., (Science) Degree, awarded by University of Punjab have been treated equivalent to B.Ed., M.Ed., and M.A. (Education), M.B.E. and M.A. Technical Education (Industrial Arts). This notification also does not say anything about any Academic Degrees like M.A. or M.Sc. or their equivalence with any Professional Degree.
9. The petitioners admittedly do not possess Degree of M.A. or M.Sc. Petitioner No.3, possesses B.A. Degree while the remaining petitioners possesses B.Sc. Degree. Although they do possess the requisite professional Degree viz M.A.Ed. but requirement for the post applied by them was also C that of an Academic Degree of M.A., M.Sc. which they admittedly do not possess; hence they cannot be deemed to possess the requisite qualification for the post applied for by them i.e. S.S. Educators, basic qualification for which was M.A. or M.Sc. with Additional Qualification of a Professional Degree.
10. Direction in writ jurisdiction cannot be, therefore, issued to the respondents to consider the petitioners' qualification fit for the post they have applied for and to interview them. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./A-626/L Petition dismissed