2025 PLP 1058 (MLD)

Shams Mehmood Mirza, J.

This order shall decide the present writ petition and the connected Writ Petitions No.56739 of 2021, 39949 of 2021 and 50176 of 2021 as the cases give rise to identical legal questions. This judgment shall narrate in detail only the facts of the present case as all the cases proceed with similar facts.

2. The petitioner secured a degree in BS (Honors) in Psychology and Political Science from Forman Christian College, Lahore. He applied for recruitment to the post of Lecturer advertised by the Punjab Public Service Commission (the Commission). After qualifying for the admission test, the petitioner was issued the call letter for interview in which he appeared on 08.04.2021. The petitioner received an intimation on 01.07.2021 from the Commission for providing the equivalence certificate of this degree. This letter in its material form reads as follows: You are directed to provide equivalence certificate of your degree with M.Sc. Psychology Commission from Higher Education Commission (HEC)/Qualification Equivalence Determination Committee (QEDC) of Higher Education Department upto 08-07-2021, failing which your interview/candidature will be cancelled. The petitioner applied to the Higher Education Department/respondent No.2 (HED) and Higher Education Commission/respondent No.4 (HEC) for issuance of the equivalence certificate. HEC did the needful and the requisite certificate was issued on 02.09.2021 stating that The Higher Education Commission recognizes Bachelor of Sciences (Honors) major in Psychology and English degree held by you from Forman Christian College, Lahore after 'Intermediate/12-year of schooling' as equivalent to corresponding Master degree in the relevant field involving 16-year of schooling. The grievance of the petitioner arose when the Qualification Equivalence Determination Committee (the Committee) of HED communicated to the petitioner through letter dated 27.07.2021 its decision that his degree of Bachelor of Psychology and Political Science obtained from Forman Christian College to be not equivalent with major in Psychology, which was the requirement for the post of lecturer. The candidature of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer of Psychology (male) BS-16 was accordingly rejected by Punjab Public Service Commission (the Commission) through E-mail dated 29.07.2021.

3. The petitioner applied for the equivalence certificate pursuant to the direction of the Commission. Both HEC and HED gave different opinions regarding the status of the professional degree(s) obtained by the petitioners. The question that has arisen for determination is that which of the two institutions shall have primacy for determining the equivalence of the degree of the petitioner.

4. HEC is a statutory organization created under the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002 (HEC Ordinance). HED, on the other hand, traces its origins in Notification dated 8th of November 2004 by S&GAD. HEC Ordinance federal legislation whereas HED is constituted under a Notification. Be that as it may, this Court shall not determine the issue whether HED was validly constituted or not or whether Committee of HED does have any statutory underpinning in the tasks that it seeks to perform.

5. The precise contention of the petitioners, apart from others, before this Court is that the decision of the Committee was based on the opinion of one of its members, the Lecturer of Applied Psychology in the University of Punjab. It is the case of the petitioner that a Professor from Forman Christian College in the concerned discipline ought to have been heard by the Committee at the time of making its decision.

6. The Court during the course of proceedings of this case directed the learned Assistant Advocate General to obtain instructions for inclusion of a professor from Forman Christian College, Lahore in the meeting of the Committee for decision afresh on the equivalence of the academic qualification of the petitioner and other petitioners. The learned Assistant Advocate General on 29.05.2023 informed the Court that the meeting of the Committee shall be reconvened and that Forman Christian College may nominate Professor(s) in the concerned discipline who shall be granted hearing by the Committee. Learned counsel for Forman Christian College undertook that the College shall nominate the professor(s) for their appearance before the Committee. Despite the consensual arrangement between the parties, the learned Assistant Advocate General on 03.01.2024 submitted that Rules on the subject do not allow the participation of any Professor in the meeting of the Committee for determining the equivalence of the academic qualification of the petitioners. Be that as it may, the parawise comments filed on behalf of HED were accompanied by the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 07.04.2021. The meeting was held pursuant to order dated 30.03.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.1773 of 2021. This meeting was attended by Special Secretary, Higher Education Department, Ms. Syeda Fatima from Department of English, Forman Christian College University, Lahore, Ms. Hooria Liaqat, Department of English, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Muhammad Irfan. Deputy Director of the Commission and Dilawar Hussain, Section Officer, S&GA Department, Lahore. This Court accordingly concluded through its order dated 03.01.2024 that there does not appear to be any prohibition in the Rules for associating the Professors of Forman Christian College University belonging to the respective disciplines by the Committee for determining the equivalence of the academic qualifications of the petitioners in all the writ petitions. The Committee was accordingly directed to convene its meeting for determination afresh of the equivalence of the degrees obtained by all the petitioners after associating the Professors from Forman Christian College University.

7. The parties on the next date of hearing (30.01.2024) arrived at a consensus for sending the matter to the HEC for constituting a committee which shall include a representative of the HED, the Commission, and a professor from the University which awarded the degree to the petitioners and such other members as it may deem fit for making a fresh determination. It was, however, clarified that the determination made by the HEC shall be subject to final adjudication of all the legal and factual issues raised in this writ petition and in the connected writ petitions.

8. HEC submitted its report through its letter dated 24.04.2024 stating that as the matter required extensive academic deliberations it was referred to the Equivalence and Accreditation Committee. The meeting of the said committee was attended by the representatives of the Commission, HEC and Forman Christian College University. The Equivalence of Accreditation Committee after deliberating upon the matter made the following recommendations: The qualification having two majors can be considered at the level of two-year conventional MA/ MSc degree (involving 16 years of schooling) as the number of courses studied during the qualifications under review for each major are sufficient to cover two-years study at the National Qualification Framework (NQF) level

6. This consideration should only be valid where the eligibility criteria for vacancies is prescribed as two-year conventional MA / MSc degree (involving 16 years of schooling) in a particular subject and not four-year undergraduate / BS qualification in the same subject. In view of this, the qualifications under review may be considered for positions advertised by PPSC requiring two-year conventional MA/ MSc degree in respective disciplines as mentioned on petitioner's transcript, to be used only for employment purposes and not for further education, which must be determined by the concerned National Curriculum Review Committees (NCRCs), relevant accreditation councils or the admitting university (as the case may be). Irrespectively, determining of suitability of candidates is the prerogative of the employer to which HEC has no role to play.

9. The learned Additional Advocate General in view of the findings of HEC has no objection to the acceptance of this writ petition and other connected writ petitions.

10. Regardless of the concession by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court would render its opinion on the legal issues involved in this case.

11. The starting point for any inquiry on the issue of equivalence of the professional degree(s) of the petitioners must begin with the HEC Ordinance. Section 2 of the HEC Ordinance provides the definition clause. The expression Higher Education means education at bachelor's and higher level degree courses including postgraduate certificates, diplomas and research and development activities. The expression Institutions has been defined to mean any university or other degree awarding institution that offers higher education or is involved in research and development activities. Similarly, degree awarding institutions means an institution imparting higher education and awarding degree of its own. The expression University means a university established or incorporated under any law for the time being in force. Section 10 of HEC Ordinance describes the powers HEC has and the functions it performs. Section 10(0) grants the power to HEC to "determine the equivalence and recognition of degrees, diplomas and certificates awarded by Institutions within the country and abroad". Section 20 of the HEC Act is a non-obstante clause granting primacy to its provisions notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in law for the time being in force.

12. The question whether the opinion of HEC shall prevail or that of HED does not pose any insurmountable hurdles. In fact, it is a fairly straightforward question with a simple answer. In the first place, Forman Christian College University is admittedly the degree awarding institution and it imparts higher education. Forman Christian College University and the degree the petitioner obtained are thus squarely covered by the HEC Ordinance. Secondly, HEC by the terms of HEC Ordinance is the only authority which can determine the equivalence of degrees awarded by any University or degree awarding institutions. HED, as noted above, does not have the statutory backing that HEC Act provides to HEC for determination of equivalence. There is also a practical aspect of the matter. The students from degree awarding institutions located in a particular province can and do apply for higher education or for jobs in other provinces. In case any dispute arises regarding the equivalence of their degree(s), HEC is the only federal institution that has the mandate under section 10(0) for making determination over the equivalence and recognition of degrees, diplomas and certificates awarded by institutions within the country and abroad. HEC is thus central to the dispute resolution mechanism in relation to equivalence of degrees by degree awarding institutions all over the country to the exclusion of provincial entities like the HED and its Committee.

13. Section 10 of HEC Ordinance came for interpretation before this Court in the case of Wajid Ali v. Pakistan Bar Council PLD 2017 Lahore 584 and it was declared that "Bare reading of above provision of law reveals that it is the domain of the Higher Education Commission to determine the equivalence and recognition of degrees issued by various institutions within and outside the country." The powers of HEC were also viewed in the context of Article 143 of the Constitution and it was opined that "In the light of Article 143 of the Constitution, the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002 being enacted through the Parliament (Federal Legislation) has precedence over the University of the Punjab Act, 1973 (Provincial Legislation) to the extent of repugnancy. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion....if there is any need of recognition or equivalency of degrees of the universities, it can solely be done by the Higher Education Commission and not by any university including the Punjab University."

14. The learned Additional Advocate General on one date of hearing referred to Notification dated 8th of November 2004 issued by S&GAD through which the service/recruitment rules of various categories of posts of all administrative departments framed under section 23 of the Civil Servants Act, 1974 were amended by adding the following "or any other equivalent qualification as may be determined by the Government". For the post of lecturer, the maximum qualification after the issuance of afore-mentioned Notification was as follows: Master's Degree (atleast 2nd Division) in the relevant subject or equivalent qualification provided for that subject or M.A. 3rd Division with diploma in English from Allama Iqbal Open University will also be eligible. On the strength of Notification dated 8th of November 2004, it was contended that the Government and/or HED was the sole authority for determining the equivalence of the professional degree(s) of the petitioners to the exclusion of all others. This argument has no valid basis. Notification dated 8th of November 2004 simply empowers the Government to propose any other equivalent qualification other than the prescribed qualifications for recruitment to a post. The Notification does not grant any authority to the Government to determine the equivalence of a degree in case of a dispute.

15. The issue has arisen in the context of the nature of the academic qualification the petitioners obtained from Forman Christian College University and its equivalence to the degree prescribed by the Rules. The question as to the identification of the forum which would settle the matter in case of a dispute is closely tied up with the said issue. As noted above, HEC is the only forum for determining equivalence of the degrees of the Universities under section 10(1)(0) of the HEC Ordinance. HEC having been constituted under a federal law, its determination shall prevail over other provincial entities performing similar functions. This is now firmly established by principle and by case law as noted above. After identification of HEC as the sole arbiter of determining the equivalence, could the Court discount the certificate issued by it holding that the academic qualification of the petitioner was not equivalent to the prescribed qualification. The answer is in negative. The law has committed the authority to HEC to determine the equivalence, and this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its decision for that of HEC. Furthermore, the Commission itself directed the petitioner to get the equivalence certificate from HEC. This Court does not see the point in this exercise if the Commission was not prepared to attach any weight to the equivalence certificate issued by HEC.

16. The respondents have not been able to persuade this Court with any plausible argument for attaching primacy to the opinion of HED over that of HEC. The principle and the weight of the authority dictate that HEC is the sole arbiter of equivalence of the academic qualification in terms of section 10(1)(0) of the HEC Act. The certificate issued by HEC does not compel the Commission or the respondents to grant employment to the petitioners. HEC only equated the academic qualification of the petitioner with prescribed degree and nothing more. Although the Commission required the petitioners to obtain equivalence certificates from HEC and the Committee of HED, it provided no reason let alone valid one for not giving due weight to the equivalence certificate issued by HEC. The decision by the Commission to ignore the equivalence certificate issued by HEC thus cannot sustain in law and facts of the case. Be that as it may, the HEC has now resolved the matter in its meeting in which the members of HED also participated and has endorsed the stance of the petitioners.

17. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned decisions taken by the Committee in its meetings and orders passed by the Commission in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. In the light of the decision of HEC, it is furthermore declared that the degree of the petitioners is equivalent to the prescribed qualification mentioned in the advertisement. The judgment of this Court shall, however, not affect the recruitment process in question which stood completed. The petitioners shall, however, be at liberty to participate in future recruitment process to be initiated by the Commission on the basis of their degree. The connected writ petitions are also allowed on the above terms. UN/A-38/L Petitions allowed.