Public sector universities

2025 SCMR 322 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 184(3)Constitution petition before the Supreme CourtPublic Sector Universities

Posts of Vice-Chancellors, Pro Vice-Chancellors, Rectors, Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Registrars, Heads of Faculties and Departments, Controller of Examination, Director Finance and other tenured positions either lying vacant and/or held on acting charge basis

Decision making bodies of the public sector universities, i.e., their board of trustees, board of governors, syndicates, senates and academic councils not meeting periodically and/or compliance not being made in holding the minimum prescribed number of meetings as stipulated in their respective laws

Legality

From the information provided by the Higher Education Commission (HEC) and the Federal Ministry of Education very serious transgressions committed by some Federal public sector universities were brought to the Supreme Court's attention

Supreme Court issued the following directions to all Federal and Provincial public sector universities ('the universities'), the Federal Ministries of Education, Science and Technology and Defence, the Provincial Ministries of Education, the HEC and the Provincial Higher Education Departments ('HEDs'):

2025 PLC(CS) 398 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.2(2), 29(2), 30 & 32University of the Punjab Act (IX of 1973), S. 2(2), Sched.Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Public Sector UniversitiesAppointment of DeansEligibility criteria

Powers of the Governor of Punjab to issue circular in his capacity as Chancellor determining multi-factors eligibility criteria for appointment of Deans

Scope

Existence of comprehensive legal mechanism for constitution, operations and functionality of Universities

Petitioners had challenged the legal status of the impugned Circular in the light of the relevant Statutes of University of the Engineering and Technology (UET) and University of the Punjab (PU) and the appointments of Deans in the said Universities in terms of the said Circular

Held, that under the UET Act, 1974 no power vested in the Governor Punjab in his capacity as Chancellor of UET to arbitrarily or unilaterally prescribe a criteria for the appointment of Dean of UET unless the criteria as proposed was incorporated in the Statutes or Regulations or Rules of UET in accordance with the provisions of the UET Act, 1974

Proposed criteria encapsulated in the Circular had not so far been adopted or incorporated in the relevant Statutes or Regulations or Rules of UET and as such, had no legal footing, thus, the only relevant provision of law in the field was S. 2(2) of the First Statutes of Schedule to the UET Act, 1974, which empowered the Governor Punjab as Chancellor of UET to appoint the Dean of each Faculty of UET from amongst the three senior most Professors in the Faculty for a period of three years

Discretion was structured in the manner that it was confined to consider the three senior most Professors in the Faculty

Appointment of Dean of UET was made, accordingly, and as such, there was no substance in the challenge brought to the appointment of respondent in UET

Applicable criteria for appointment of Dean in Punjab University was the same as in the case of UET, thus, challenge to the appointment of Dean in PU was also without substance

Any discretion vested in any authority by law can be further regulated and structured through delegated legislation within the ambit of applicable enactment as was proposed by the Governor Punjab through the Circular, however, no vested legal right could be asserted on its basis unless the said criteria was adopted in the relevant Statutes, Regulations or Rules of the Professors as Deans of Public Sector Universities (PSU)

No lawful mandate could be extended to any functionary to prescribe a criteria in his own wisdom in a manner not ordained by law

While appointing the Deans, the Governor Punjab followed the applicable statutory criteria and disregarded the proposed mechanism in the Circular since it did not have the force of law

Constitutional petitions challenging the appointments of Deans in UET and PU were dismissed and the one challenging the vires of the Circular was allowed, in circumstances.

2024 SCMR 1887 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 184(3)Constitution petition before the Supreme CourtPublic Sector Universities

Posts of Vice-Chancellors, Pro Vice-Chancellors, Rectors, Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Registrars, Heads of Faculties and Departments, Controller of Examination, Director Finance and other tenured positions either lying vacant and/or held on acting charge basis

Legality

Public sector universities must comply with their respective laws, and if those in charge of them are disregarding the same for no justifiable reason, then they must demonstrate that they are still competent to hold their respective positions

Laws governing these universities require that the meetings of syndicates, senates, boards of governors and boards of trustees, as applicable, must be periodically held

Universities must not leave vacant important positions of vice-chancellors, presidents, vice presidents, registrars, heads of faculties and departments, controller of examination and director finance as in doing so they contravene the applicable laws

This state of affairs whereby the law is disregarded cannot be allowed to continue

Considerable amount from the public exchequer is spent on public sector universities

These universities must abide by their respective laws

Unfortunately, many are being run in contravention of their laws on the personal whim of those placed in charge thereof

These transgressions adversely affect academics, the reputation and standing of Pakistani universities and also undermine the degrees awarded by them

Supreme Court directed that copies of present order be sent to the respective Vice Chancellors/Rectors and to all those not compliant who shall submit within two weeks of the receipt of the notice their response under their own signatures explaining why they are not complying with the law governing their university and why appropriate actions may not be recommended to be initiated, or be initiated, as the case may be, against them, and they shall also be in attendance on the next date of hearing

Supreme Court observed that Higher Education Commission (HEC) has prescribed an ideal ratio of academic to non-academic staff to be 1:1.5, which nearly all universities are failing to abide by in that the non-academic staff far exceeds the said ratio; that this appears to be one of the reasons for the financial problems being faced by the universities

Supreme Court directed that the Federation, Provinces and the Islamabad Capital Territory shall submit whether directions have been issued to ensure that the universities restrict/stop further employment of non-academic staff.

2021 SCMR 1509 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Public sector universitiesPost of Vice-ChancellorAppointment

In the order of the Supreme Court titled "Appointments of Permanent Vice Chancellor of Punjab University (Human Rights Case No. 13865-P of 2018)" a rule of general application relating to the appointment of Vice-Chancellors in public sector universities on the basis of recommendations of search committees had been laid down

Applicability of the said rule was not limited only to the universities before the Supreme Court but to all universities in the public sector under the control or authority of the government which was fully represented before the Supreme Court when the order was passed

Further, the said order was not only implemented with reference to the institutions before the Supreme Court but to all other public sector universities for all intents and purposes

Said order had also attained finality and continued to hold the field.

2021 PLC(CS) 1259 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Public sector universitiesPost of Vice-ChancellorAppointment

In the order of the Supreme Court titled "Appointments of Permanent Vice Chancellor of Punjab University (Human Rights Case No. 13865-P of 2018)" a rule of general application relating to the appointment of Vice-Chancellors in public sector universities on the basis of recommendations of search committees had been laid down

Applicability of the said rule was not limited only to the universities before the Supreme Court but to all universities in the public sector under the control or authority of the government which was fully represented before the Supreme Court when the order was passed

Further, the said order was not only implemented with reference to the institutions before the Supreme Court but to all other public sector universities for all intents and purposes

Said order had also attained finality and continued to hold the field.

2017 PLD 489 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 10University of the Punjab Act (IX of 1973), Ss. 14(2) & 14(4)Public Sectors Universities (Amendment) Act (LX of 2012), S.2 & PreambleConstitution of Pakistan, Fourth Sched. Part II, Item No.12 & Arts. 142, 143, 154 & 199Government of Punjab, Higher Education Department Notification No.SO(Univ.) 5-3/09, dated 7th April, 2015Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3Public sector universitiesVice ChancellorsAppointment criteria

Directions and declaration of the High Court in respect of, inter alia, legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature in the subject of higher education, appointment of Vice Chancellors, nature of guidelines issued by Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002 and role of the Council of Common Interest (CCI).

2017 PLD 489 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 10University of the Punjab Act (IX of 1973), Ss. 14(2) & 14(4)Public Sectors Universities (Amendment) Act (LX of 2012), Ss.2 & PreambleConstitution of Pakistan, Fourth Sched. Part II, Item No.12 & Arts. 142, 143 & 199Government of Punjab, Higher Education Department Notification No.SO(Univ.) 5-3/09, dated 7th April, 2015Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) S. 3Public sector universitiesVice ChancellorsAppointment criteriaNature of guidelines issued for said appointments under Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002Competence of the Provincial Legislature to legislate, expand and improve upon such guidelinesConstitutional structure of federalism and cooperative federalismScope

Appellant impugned order of High Court whereby Ss.14(2) & 14(4) of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973 along with other similar provisions in statutes of various public universities, were struck down inter alia on the ground that per Entry No. 12 of Part II of the Fourth Schedule read with Arts. 142 & 143 of the Constitution, standards in institutions for higher education was within the exclusive domain of Federal Legislative Subject, on which the Provinces could not legislate

Validity

Impugned judgment over-emphasized on exclusivity of the federal legislature, sidelining the overarching constitutional structure of federalism and cooperative federalism, which prevailed over Art. 142 of the Constitution

Scheme of the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002 provided for minimum guidelines and standards, giving leeway to the Province to improve on these standards exercising its own legislative and executive power

No conflict existed between Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002, setting minimum standards and S. 14 of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973 providing for qualifications, experience and criteria for appointment of a Vice Chancellor

Province, in the present case, had fully applied the minimum guidelines issued by the Higher Education Commission without objecting to its directory nature and view of the impugned judgment that setting standards in institutions of higher education fell within the exclusive domain of the federal legislature due to said Item 12, was not sustainable for the reason that Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002 itself provided for minimum guidelines which were non-binding

Constitutional scheme of cooperative federalism gave space to both the federation and the province to have a functional co-existence

High Court observed that even if the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002 provided standards (as opposed to minimum standards) in institutions of higher education, they would be contextualized in the Constitutional scheme and interpreted in a manner to promote cooperative federalism so that the federal and provincial standards smoothly co-existed and only in case of inescapable conflict between the two, would recourse be made to Art.143 of the Constitution to give pre-emptive status to the federal law

Impugned judgment declaring S.14(2) and (4) of the Act to be unconstitutional was therefore not sustainable in law as the same amounted to depriving federal Constitution of its new found vitality post eighteenth Constitutional Amendment and was set aside

Intra-court appeal was allowed, accordingly.