1998 PLP 327 (CLC)

3. In pursuance of the order of this Court, report was filed by the respondent University, wherein the following stance was taken:‑‑ "That the petitioner is not eligible for admission in Master of Technology Education having no requisite qualification which is condition precedent fur admission in the said Department. The petitioner having only B.Tech. (Hons.) in his credit, which has never been declared equivalent by the Equivalence Committee of the respondent University." In para. 7 of the parawise comments similar stance was taken by the respondent University by stating:‑‑ "Contents of para. 7 are vehemently denied the petitioner having no requisite qualification, cannot be treated at par with the B.Sc./B.E. (Engg.) degree or an Associate Engineer for the purpose of admission in Master's Technical Education Programme." According to the respondents, for the relevant course the qualification prescribed is B.E./B.Sc. but the educational qualifications of B.Tech (Hons.) and Diploma of Associate Engineer possessed by the petitioner were not shown in the prospectus to be considered for admission in Master of Technology Education.

4. However, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the B.Tech (Hons.) has been equated with the B.Sc. (Engg.) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment dated 5‑6‑1995 rendered in Suo Motu Review Petition No.52 of 1992. But the learned counsel for the respondents explained that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared the B.Tech. (Hons.) equivalent to B.E. and B.Sc. (Engg.) only for the purpose of grades and pay to the employees of such degree‑holders. In this respect he has referred to para. 13 of the judgment which runs as follows:‑‑

"We may again observe that it is exclusively within the domain of the Government to decide whether a particular qualification will be considered sufficient for promotion from a particular Grade to a higher Grade and it is also within the domain of the Government to change the above policy from time to time as no body can claim any vested right in the policy. However, it cannot abdicate its power to decide the above question in favour of a corporate body which is not in its control nor it can act in a manner which may be violative of Article 25 of the Constitution on account of being discriminatory. It is still open to the Government for future to, provide that academic qualification of B.Tech. (Hons.) will not be considered sufficient for promotion from B.P.S. 16 to B.P.S. 17 if the same does not violate the above principle."

5. In the aforesaid judgment the Supreme Court has referred to letter dated 26‑10‑1973 of the then Minister of Education and Provincial Coordination, Government of Pakistan addressed to the Provincial Governors which, inter alia, states that, "B.Tech. (Honours) shall be treated at par with B.Sc. (Engineering)/B. E. Degree".

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the prospectus showed that out of total 41 merit seats, 10 were reserved for "In Service Technical Graduate Teachers" and 6 were reserved for "Graduates having Diploma of Associate Engineers". This position is also admitted in parawise comments submitted by respondent No.2, It is also in the parawise comments submitted by respondent No.l that the University Grants Commission has declared B. Tech. (Hons.) equivalent to B. E. /B.Sc. (Engg.).

7. The petitioner applied initially for the Session 1994‑1996 through proper channel as he is working as Instructor, T.T.C: Gulberg, Lahore. Again for the Session 1995‑1997, he applied for admission in the Master of Technology Education Course but admission was not granted to him on the ground that he did not process requisite qualification as according to the respondent basic qualification for admission in the Master of Technology Education Course was B.Sc./B.E. (Engg.) whereas the petitioner was a Graduate having Diploma in Engineering. On 10‑10‑1994, the petitioner submitted an application to the Chairman, Admission Committee, giving reasons for admission to the Master of Technology Education. This application was sent to the Chairman, Master of Technology Education who made the following comments:‑‑ "B.Tech. Pass/Hons. Degree of the Engineering University, Lahore are known as Bachelor of Technology, Lahore and in my view opinion are vocational programmes. So, the students holding this should be allowed to enhance their knowledge by doing Master of Technology Education. M.T.E. is a Professional Degree, if they want to convert themselves from vocational to professional, the Department will have no object and I think it will be a relevant field for them."

8. As observed, the relevant Prospectus shows that 6 seats were reserved for admission to the Master of Technology Education for the candidates who were "Graduates having Diploma of Associates Engineers". Thus, according to the Prospectus itself, the petitioner who is also a "Graduate having Diploma of Associate Engineers" is entitled to be considered against one of the seats reserved for this category. The petitioner is not only a Graduate having Diploma of Associates Engineers but he has also qualified in "B.Tech. Pass" and' "B.Tech. (Hons.)". The Government of Pakistan in the aforesaid letter and the University Grants Commission has treated the B.Tech. (Hons.) equivalent to B.E./B.Sc. (Engg.), admittedly for the purpose of pay and grade. Therefore, if in service, persons having B.Tech. (Hons.) qualification is treated equal to and is at par with the Engineer having B.Sc. (Engg)/B.E. Degree for the purpose of promotion, pay and grade, why cannot the petitioner who is a graduate having Diploma of Associate Engineer and holds the degree of B.Tech. (Hons.), be treated at par with the candidates with B.Sc. (Engg.)/B.E. Degree for the purpose of admission to Master of Technology Education. It is not denied that even in the past the admission was granted to the candidates with the qualification of B.Tech. (Hons.). 8‑A. In the light of the above discussion, both the writ petitions are accepted The respondents are, therefore, directed to consider the petitioner for admission in the Master of Technology Education on the basis of his qualification mentioned in both the writ petitions against one of the seats reserved for the candidates who are "Graduates having Diploma of Associate Engineers". No order as to cost. A.A./M‑444/L Petition accepted.