1990SCMR1501 (PLP)
Director, General‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Syed MANZAR HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990SCMR1501 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Ghulam Mujaddid |
| Parties | Director, General‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Syed MANZAR HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Pakistan Engineering Council Act (V of 1976)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR1501 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Pakistan Engineering Council Act (V of 1976)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990SCMR1501 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Ghulam Mujaddid.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990SCMR1501 (PLP) (Director, General‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Syed MANZAR HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Afzal Siddiqi, Deputy Attorney‑General and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th October, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 27‑2‑1989 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Writ Petition No.496 of 1982). ‑‑‑‑S.27‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.25 & 185(3)‑‑‑Respondents holding M.Sc. Degree in Physics were appointed as Engineers in Radio Pakistan‑‑‑Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975, which was enacted after respondent's appointment envisaged that only graduate engineers were qualified to be appointed as Engineers in various departments including Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation‑‑‑Respondents not being graduates in Engineering were, accordingly ineligible for recruitment and though they were allowed to remain in service, yet were not granted Class I status in B.P.S.17‑‑‑High Court, in Constitutional jurisdiction found that such treatment to respondents was discriminatory inasmuch as respondents were deprived of the same status as given to graduate Engineers although they were working in the same circumstances and on the same conditions‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether provisions of Art.25 of the Constitution had been infringed as the respondents were graduates simpliciter, not being graduates in engineering while the other employees belonged to a different class being holders of graduate degrees in Engineering‑‑‑As the two did not belong to the same class, prima facie, the question of discrimination and differentiation would not arise.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Afzal Siddiqi, Deputy Attorney‑General and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 9th October, 1989. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 27‑2‑1989 passed by a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court in Writ Petition No.496 of 1982. The relevant facts briefly are that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 joined service of the Government of Pakistan in the then Radio Pakistan in the years 1966, 1967 and 1908 respectively as Engineers. They are holders of M.Sc. Degree in Physics. In 1972, Radio Pakistan was converted into a Statutory Corporation and the services of the respondents stood transferred to the said Corporation. In 1975, a new law called `Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975' was enacted. According to this Act only graduate engineers were qualified to be appointed as engineers in the various departments including. Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation. The respondents not being graduates in engineering were, accordingly, ineligible for recruitment. However, they were allowed to continue as such but were not granted Class 1 status in NPS‑17 which was allowed to those Senior Broadcasting Engineers who held the engineering degree prescribed under the rules. On a writ petition filed by the respondents, the High Court has held that this treatment is discriminatory inasmuch as the respondents are deprived of the same status as given to the graduate engineers although they are working in the same circumstances and on the same conditions. The question, which arises for consideration, is whether the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan have been infringed in the circumstances of the case? It appears that the respondents are all graduates simpliciter, not being graduates in engineering while the other employees belong to a different class being holders of graduate degrees in engineering. As the two do not belong to same class, prima facie the question of discrimination and differentiation does not arise. Leave is, accordingly, granted to consider this question. The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any and put up for hearing at a very early date. A.A./P‑117/S Leave granted.