| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 4015 2025 SLD 4015 = 2025 CLC 589 |
Islamabad High Court
Writ Petition No. 260 of 2022, decided on 19th November, 2024.
Before Babar Sattar, J
Barrister Raheel Ahmed, Barrister Ayesha Siddique and Umer Rehman for Petitioner. Shahid Habib for HEC. Ms. Azra Batool Kazmi, A.A.G. and Dr. Agha Ghulam Haider, Deputy Director (Legal), Ministry of FE&PT. Hafiz Ahsan Ahmed Khokhar for
Respondent No. 3. Mohammad Shahzad Hanif Mayo and Muhammad Ali Jahri for
Respondent No. 4.
Writ Petition No. 260 of 2022, decided on 19th November, 2024.
Before Babar Sattar, J
Barrister Raheel Ahmed, Barrister Ayesha Siddique and Umer Rehman for Petitioner. Shahid Habib for HEC. Ms. Azra Batool Kazmi, A.A.G. and Dr. Agha Ghulam Haider, Deputy Director (Legal), Ministry of FE&PT. Hafiz Ahsan Ahmed Khokhar for
Respondent No. 3. Mohammad Shahzad Hanif Mayo and Muhammad Ali Jahri for
Respondent No. 4.
PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COUNCIL through Registrar ---Petitioner
VERSUS
HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN through Chairperson and another ---Respondents
Law: Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002
Section: LIII,10
Law: Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975
Section: V,8
Higher Education Commission Ordinance (LIII of 2002)----S. 10---Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975 (V of 1976), S. 8---Notification qua equivalence of B.Sc. and B.Tech. degrees---Determining criteria for recruitment and promotion---Policy decision taken by the Higher Education Commission (HEC) and Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC)---Legality---Powers and functions of HEC and PEC qua academic equivalence determination---Scope--Contention of the petitioner was that HEC and PEC had power only to the extent of academic equivalence determination and had no power to determine criteria for recruitment and promotions etc. on the basis of such equivalence or academic credentials---Validity---Higher Education Commission in view of the powers and functions conferred on it under provisions of the HEC Ordinance was vested with no authority to determine or declare as to which degrees could be treated as equivalent to others for purposes of recruitment or promotion etc.---Higher Education Commission was vested with statutory authority to grant equivalence to academic and educational qualifications and the scope of such authority was limited to declaring whether one academic or educational qualification could be treated as equivalent to another---Higher Education Commission in its National Qualification Framework of Pakistan, 2015, had correctly noted that a certain qualification being equivalent to another only reflected that such qualifications might be comparable in terms of the period of instruction leading to the award of such qualification etc. and such equivalence did not signify that the knowledge, skill or competence acquired by the qualification holder was interchangeable with another individual holding another degree or qualification that had been declared equivalent, thus, HEC was vested with no authority to advise employers as to which degrees could be considered equivalent for purposes of recruitment or for purposes of promotion---Skills, competence and knowledge that was required for purposes of a certain post was a policy matter to be determined by the relevant employer and while an employer could seek guidance from any equivalence granted by HEC declaring…