1984 PLP 1398 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th January, 1984: MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑ On 17‑5‑80 the Chairman, Pakistan Engineering Council (respondent No.2) addressed a circular letter to the Pakistan Ordnance Factories drawing attention to section 27 of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975, which lays down that all professional engineering works could only be undertaken by duly qualified engineers registered with the Council and that any violation of, or non‑compliance with, these provisions, was a penal offence. Respondent No.2 requested the Pakistan Ordnance Factories to ensure that all engineering works in the P O.F. were entrusted to qualified engineers only, and that unqualified persons should not be allowed to handle such works. The P.O.F. respondent No.4 duly circulated this letter for information and compliance to the concerned.

2. The petitioner's case is that during the course of his duties in the P.O.F. it came to his knowledge that Mr. M.S. Qazi respondent No.l, Works Manager was an unqualified and unregistered person but had been assigned professional engineering jobs in contravention of the provisions of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act. Accordingly, the petitioner met the Superintending Engineer on 18‑6‑1980 and draw his attention to circular instructions of 17‑6‑1980 urging that it was now legally incumbent on him to replace Mr. M.S. Qazi whose claim to be a diploma holder was not correct as he had simply undergone a single course in Irrigation at Rasul and had been promoted from the rank of Foreman Grade‑16 to Assistant Works Manager in Grade‑17 and this was the maximum he could reach under the Pakistan Engineering Council Act.

3. The petitioner, getting no satisfactory reply, challenged the appointment of respondent No.l as acting Works Manager Incharge of professional engineering works before the Service Tribunal, Islamabad as P.O. F. employees are treated as civil servants for the purpose of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. However, in its order dated 26‑9‑1981 the learned Tribunal held that it could not issue a direction to respondent No. l to show under what authority of law he was holding the office of Works Manager as this was in the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 9 of the P.C.O. 1981.

4. Learned counsel contended that in the proceedings before the Service Tribunal the Chairman, Pakistan Engineering Council, respondent No.2 was a party and he categorically admitted in his written statement with reference to Mr. M.S. Qazi's appointment as Acting Works Manager that "undertaking of professional engineering work without being registered with the Council as a professional engineer is a violation of the P.E.C. Act, 1975"; that while thus admitting the violation, respondent No.2 has been abstaining from the duty enjoined on him by law for initiating proceedings for punishment of clear violation. Under section 27 (6) of the Act, no Court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act save on complaint by, or under the authority of the Pakistan Engineering Council; that not only the Pakistan Engineering Council to whom the matter was reported had taken no action, but on the other hand, Mr. M.S. Qazi who was acting Works Manager w.e.f. 27‑5‑1978 was later promoted on a regular basis as Works Manager, Civil Grade‑18 w.e.f 31‑5‑1982. 5.???????? After the decision of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.463/S/82 in the Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahore High Court praying the learned Court to make an order in the nature of a quo warranto (i) requiring Mr. M.S. Qazi respondent No.1 who is still holding or purporting to hold the public office of Works Manager, Civil, in the P.O.F. to show under what authority of law he claims to hold that office, and (ii) declaring that office to be vacant and restraining him from holding the office or acting as Works Manager, Civil, in any manner. The learned Single Judge of the High Court who heard this petition, dismissed it in limine by a short order that respondent No.l is not holding any public office and as such the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge his appointment.

6. We have exmined the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and we find that the impugned order is not exception?able as the office claimed must be a Public Office; a writ will not issue to question the claim to an office in an institution like a private college or school or a private corporation. The Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975 is meant mainly for regulating the engineering profession and for that purpose an Engineering Council has been constituted which deals with the matter in the manner set out in the Act itself. Thus we find no merit in this petition which, is, accordingly, dismissed. S . Q .? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.