2017 LHC 319 Judgment:
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE , JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Writ Petition No.14338 of 2011.
(Mudassar Hassan Rana etc. v. Federal Government etc.)
J U D G M E N T
Date of hearing: 17.01.2017.
Petitioners by:
Mr. Javed Sultan Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners in this petition.
Mr. Naveed Ahmad Khawaja Advocate for petitioners in W.P. Nos.7086/2014, 7135/2014, 7165/2014, 7167/2014 and 7168/2014.
Respondents by:
Mr. Muhammad Mehmood Khan, D.A.G.
Mian Muhammad Tariq Hassan Advocate for PIA.
Mr. Naveed Ahmad Khawaja Advocate for respondents No.6 to 10 in this petition.
Mr. Javed Sultan Chaudhary, Advocate for private respondents in connected petitions.
Shujaat Ali Khan, J: – Through this single judgment I intend to decide this petition (W.P. No.14338/2011) as well as connected petitions bearing W.P. No.7086/2014, titled Mst. Qaisra Naeem v. The District Manager PIA etc., W.P. No.7135/2014, titled Irfan Basit v. The District Manager PIA etc., W.P. No.7165/2014, titled Tanveer Qasim v. The District Manager PIA etc., W.P. No.7167/2014, titled Wajid Saleem Ch.
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–2–
v. The District Manager PIA etc. and W.P. No.7168/2014, titled Muhammad Ejaz v. The District Manager PIA etc. having commonality of facts and law inasmuch as in this petition Mudassar Hassan Rana etc. (hereinafter to be referred as the petitioners) while challenging Policy circulated through Admin Order No.13/2011, has assailed promotion orders of respondents No.6 to 12 (hereinafter to be referred as the respondents) whereas in connected petitions the respondents have put a challenge to proceedings pending before FIA authorities on the complaint filed by the petitioners and others.
2. Unnecessary details apart, the respondents were promoted from PG-V to PG-VI in terms of Admin Order No.13/2011, dated 02.06.2011. Aggrieved by their promotion the petitioners have filed this petition whereas the respondents by way of filing connected petitions have challenged the competence of the FIA authorities to proceed with the complaint filed by the petitioners and others against them.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the respondents got M.B.A. degrees without attending classes the same did not carry any legal value; that requisite NOCs were not got by the respondents prior to their admission in M.B.A.; that the petitioners being senior to the respondents were entitled
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–3–
for promotion; that purportedly the respondents got their MBA degrees from Al-Khair University (AJK) (hereinafter to be referred as the University), Islamabad campus but as the said University has no campus either in Lahore or Islamabad the degrees issued in their favour are not valid and that the petitioners, alongwith others, have moved FIA authorities for criminal action against them thus they have no bearing on each other.
4. Mian Muhammad Tariq Hassan Advocate, representing PIA, while controverting the contentions urged by learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as terms & conditions of service of PIA employees are governed under non-statutory rules, this petition is not maintainable; that promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right rather it is prerogative of the competent authority to promote an employee who fulfills the eligibility criteria; that prior to their promotion, degrees issued in favour of the respondents were sent to Higher Education Commission (HEC) for verification whereupon the said forum confirmed that the same were valid; that HEC got published a proclamation in daily Jang, dated 08.01.2012, sensitizing the public at large about degrees, if any, issued by the University on the basis of admissions after 30-04-2009 would not be acknowledged; that in addition to Special Incentive on the basis
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–4–
of MBA/MPA/MAS, a revised promotion policy 2011 has been published through Admin Order No.24/2011 for promotion of the persons serving in Admin category; that on the dint of Office Order No.24/2011 Mudassar Hassan Rana (one of the petitioners) has already been promoted in PG-VI whereas Muhammad Khalid Javed has been ignored on account of lack of minimum qualification as he is only intermediate; that promotion of the respondents was recommended by the Board comprising persons not only enjoying high profile but good reputation as well; that while introducing Fast Track Placement Programme (FTPP) for MBA/MPA/MAS degree holders it was given option to the employees either to opt for that or for Normal Placement Programme (NPP) and in the event of non-clearance of six weeks rigorous training or the subsequent papers, the employee concerned was bound to be considered for promotion under the general policy; that accelerated promotion on the basis of MBA/MPA/MAS degrees was introduced by virtue of Admin Order No.24/1991 circulated on 04.06.1991 which was amended many a times but the petitioners instead of challenging the original policy has only assailed validity of Admin Order No.13/2011; that as petitioners No.3 & 4 are no more in service this petition to their extent has become redundant. In support of his contentions learned counsel has
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–5–
relied upon the cases reported as Saleem Ullah Khan v. Shahid Hamid and another (2011 SCMR 788), Pakistan International Airline Corporation and others v. Tanweer-Ur-Rehman and others (PLD 2010 SC 676), Syed Noorul Hasan v. The Secretary, Ministry of Industries, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others (1987 SCMR 598), Muhammad Amin Bhatti v. Inspector General of Punjab Police (2011 PLC (C.S.) 535) and Malik Mazharul Haq and another v. Chairman, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, Islamabad and 3 others (2010 PLC (C.S.) 1472).
5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Attorney General, while supporting the view point of learned counsel representing PIA, states that proceedings pending before FIA cannot be quashed as they are independent in nature.
6. Mr. Naveed Ahmad Khawaja Advocate, representing the respondents, while opposing this petition, submits that as the petitioners have assailed vires of Promotion Policy the same is not maintainable; that as terms & conditions of service of employees of PIA are governed by non-statutory rules this Court lacks jurisdiction to deal with any issue relating to said terms & conditions; that degrees issued in favour of the respondents have already been verified by HEC, thus, it being a
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–6–
past and closed transaction cannot be re-opened; that as a matter of fact the respondents attended MBA classes at Lahore Campus of the University thus no exception can be taken against their degrees; that the queries raised in this petition revolves around factual inquiry which cannot be decided in Writ jurisdiction rather for the purpose the petitioners have to approach the relevant forum; that HEC itself fixed 30.04.2009 for validity of degrees issued by the University campuses functioning beyond the territorial jurisdiction of AJK; that since Promotion Policy was formulated in the year 1991 it cannot be believed that the same was framed just to facilitate the respondents as they joined the department in the year 1996 and that mala-fide on the part of the petitioners is manifest from the fact that Muhammad Khalid Javed (one of the petitioners) swore an affidavit on 28.06.2011 to the effect that he did not want to proceed with the matter but the rest of the petitioners with a view to mislead the Court suppressed the factum of the same.
Learned counsel in support of connected petitions submits that since matter regarding validity of degrees in favour of the respondents is pending adjudication before this Court, continuation of proceedings before FIA authorities on the complaint of the petitioners and others is a nullity in the eye of
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–7–
law; that competence of a person to hold a particular post cannot be Investigated by FIA authorities; that after validation of degrees issued by the University prior to 30.04.2009 by HEC no other authority including FIA has any power to enter into an inquiry relating to genuineness of the said degrees; that while filing complaint before FIA authorities, the petitioners and others concealed factum of filing petition before this Hon’ble Court; that none of the offences contained in Schedule attached with Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974 is made out from the contents of complaint submitted by the petitioners and others, therefore, jurisdiction of FIA authorities is barred; that though degrees were issued in favour of the petitioners on the basis of examination held in the year 2007 but the petitioners and others kept mum till the year 2013 when the respondents were promoted in PG-VI; that mala-fide on the part of FIA authorities is manifest from the fact that after taking cognizance of the matter just to humiliate and blackmail the respondents the matter was unnecessarily publicized in national press; that Pak Lawrence College, Lahore, where the respondents attended MBA classes was affiliated with the University pursuant to communication bearing No.AU-2(25)/GA/2007, dated 12.06.2007 addressed by the Registrar of the University to the Chairman, Pak Lawrence Institute, 93-1 Shadman Lahore; that
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–8–
the petitioners also filed a petition under section 22-A & B Cr.P.C. before Mr. Mazhar Salim, Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Lahore, seeking direction to FIA authorities to conclude inquiry No.1/2014 wherein the FIA submitted reply inter-alia with the assertion that originally the inquiry was closed by the competent authority vide letter dated 10.11.2014, however, later on the same was re-opened but the petitioners failed to provide any fresh evidence to prove the allegations against the respondents, thus, the continuation of proceedings before FIA authorities amount to humiliate and blackmail the respondents. In support of his contentions learned counsel has relied upon the cases reported as Abdul Wahab and others v. HBL and others (2013 SCMR 1383), Pakistan International Airline Corporation and others v. Tanweer-Ur-Rehman and others (PLD 2010 SC 676), Khawaja Muhammad Hussain Khateeb v. Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot and 7 others (PLD 2016 Lahore 522), Muhammad Arshad Rafique v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary and 4 others (2016 PLC (C.S.) 952), Hassan Mehmood v. Habib Bank Limited through President and 4 others (2016 PLC (C.S.) 315), Riaz Gul and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Water and Power, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others (2016 PLC (C.S.) 350), Khalid Hassan
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–9–
Khan v. Pakistan International Air Lines through Director of Marketing and 2 others (2013 YLR 847), Muhammad Anwar Ansari v. Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad through Secretary Election Commission of Pakistan and 5 others (2011 YLR 2810) and Munir Akhtar Awan and others v. Khalid Mansoor and others (2010 YLR 3144).
7. While exercising his right of rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the petitioners are not claiming promotion from this Court instant petition is maintainable; that it is not believable that the respondents attended the M.B.A. classes regularly while performing their official duties; that HEC in response to letter No.FIA/CCC/LHR/582, dated 18.03.2014, informed the Additional Director FIA that the degrees/transcripts of the students admitted w.e.f. 30.04.2009 to 16.10.2011 shall not be validated/recognized; that as some of the degrees of the respondents pertain to the year 2009, they cannot be termed as legitimate; that the competent authority issued letters of displeasure, dated 20.10.2015, regarding completion of M.B.A. degree by the respondents without getting requisite NOC which fact is sufficient to establish that they got admission in M.B.A. classes without issuance of prior NOC by the competent authority; that by virtue of communications, dated 24.10.2016, addressed by HR Manager
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–10–
Marketing, PIA, to M/s. Wajid Saleem and Qaisra Tabassum (respondents herein) they have been asked to submit their original degrees for onward submission to HR Record meaning thereby that the same were not on the record of the department, thus, the assertion of the respondents that their degrees have been verified for more than once by HEC on the move of the department is not believable and that as till date the respondents have not been issued notice in the instant petition they have no right of audience. To fortify his last contention learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to order 23.6.2011 whereby only notices were issued to respondents No.3 to 5 with a direction to file report and parawise comments.
8. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the respective learned counsel for the parties in addition to going through the documents forming part of these petitions, report and parawise comments and those produced by the learned counsel for the parties during the course of hearing as well as the case-law cited at the bar.
9. A cursory glance over this petition shows that under the garb of a challenge to Office Order No.13/2011 the petitioners have assailed the promotion of the respondents inter-alia with the plea that the same is not only discriminatory but also is
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–11–
being used as a devise to infringe the fundamental right of promotion of the petitioners and other similarly placed persons. This fact brings it to light that the petitioners in the attire of writ of quo warranto want to settle their personal grudge with the respondents on account of their promotion in PG-VI on the basis of MBA degrees. It is well entrenched by now that a writ of quo warranto is not maintainable on behalf of a person whose personal interest is involved. Reliance in this regard is placed on the cases reported as Muhammad Shahid Akram v. Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary and 3 others (2016 PLC (C.S.) 1335) and Barrister Sardar Muhammad v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2013 PLC (C.S.) 625). In the case of Muhammad Shahid Akram (Supra) this Court while dealing with the issue in hand has inter-alia observed as under: –
“9. The next point raised on behalf of the respondents that the petition is fraught with mala fide. Though the proceedings in terms of writ of quo-warranto are not adversarial in nature but these are inquisitorial and anybody can move for the same being the wrestle blower but the blowing of wrestle must be for the benefit of public in general and not for the personal vengeance. It is always up to the judicial conscious of the Court to examine as to whether the same qualifies the yardsticks laid down in Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 or not. But at the same time grant of relief in quo-warranto is based on principles of equity and thus the conduct and motive of the petitioner can be looked into by the High Court while entertaining the writ of quo-warranto. It is evident from
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–12–
the record that one of the petitioner Faisal Mehmood Khan is an ex-employee of Punjab Emergency Service Rescue 1122 who was proceeded departmentally under the orders of respondent No.3, being the Director General and as a result of the departmental proceedings he was removed from the service vide order dated 23rd of August, 2012. This clearly shows the motivation and mala fide on the part of the said petitioner to file the petition challenging the appointment of respondent No.3. Even the petitioner in the instant petition also approached Human Rights Cell of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan Islamabad through an application in the year 2012. The Constitutional jurisdiction cannot be resorted to settle the personal differences between the parties. Thus this Court is inclined to observe that the petition is outcome of the personal vengeance and the same is not maintainable on this score.”
10. Learned counsel representing PIA has specifically pleaded that in addition to the Policy relating to placement of the officers having MBA/MPA/MAS degrees in next pay group, a general policy regarding promotion of the admin category is also in vogue. The said assertion of learned counsel for PIA has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners meaning thereby that two different promotion channels viz. one on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness alongwith minimum qualification and other on the basis of MBA/MPA/MAS degrees is being followed in PIA. This fact also affirms that the competent authority has introduced a reasonable classification amongst the employees who are holding MBA/MPA/MAS degrees and those who do not. It is not the case of the petitioners that any person who is not
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–13–
possessing the above said degrees has been promoted whereas they have been ignored rather their case is that Office Order No.13/2011 being discriminatory deserves to be set at naught. There is no cavil with the preposition that any act of the executive aiming at discrimination amongst similarly placed persons is amenable to constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, however, when the classification is reasonable the same cannot be challenged in writ petition while pressing into service the principle of discrimination. Somewhat similar question came under discussion before the apex Court of the country in the cases reported as Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary & others v. Ch. Abdul Sattar Hans & 29 others (2015 SCMR 915) and Secretary Economic Affairs Division Islamabad & others v. Anwarul Haq Ahmed and others (2013 SCMR 1687). In the case of Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary & others (supra)the apex court of the country has inter-alia observed as under: –
“2…. We have gone through the impugned judgment rendered by the Chairman, Punjab Service Tribunal. He has proceeded on the assumption that Federal Government Employees and employees of the Provincial Government should receive the same emoluments and perquisites if they are performing the same type of duties. This finding is flawed for two reasons. Firstly, we have not found any exercise undertaken by the Tribunal or indeed any other government functionary which would show that the actual work being performed by Senior Auditors of the Audit Department who are employees of the Federal Government is exactly the same as the work
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–14–
being done by the Deputy Accountants employed by the Province. Secondly, it has been held by the Service Tribunal as under:–
“The appellants possess the similar qualifications, nature of the duties performed are similar, work under the same roof and same officer. Similarly placed are to be treated similarly. No doubt the Provincial Govt. works independently under the Constitution but generally it follows the pay scales sanctioned by the Federal Govt. If two different pay scales are given to the Federal Govt. employees and the Provincial Govt. employees it may amount to extracting labour and exploitation under Article 3 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. I tend to agree with the judgment of the Lahore High Court 2004 PLC (C.S.) 586 that it is violation of Articles 2-A, 3, 25, 37 and 38 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.”
The above reproduced observation, however, is also flawed because Article 3 of the Constitution has no application in the present case. We may note that the respondents who were appellants before the Service Tribunal were not conscripted in service. They had joined service voluntarily and had accepted the terms and conditions of service. It is evident that they did not compete with the Senior Auditors (BPS-16) of the Federal Government and, therefore, cannot claim that they should be given perks and emoluments as the Senior Auditors of the Federal Government. The question of exploitation would only have arisen if the respondents had been forcibly inducted into compulsory service. This is not the case and it appears that they had happily joined service and are enjoying the benefits of the same.
3. Thirdly, it is important to note that the Provincial Government has to remain within its own budgetary constraints. The finding of the Service Tribunal that the “Punjab Government will have to bear extra financial burden of Rs,46.44 millions, suffice to say that the service structure and financial constraints cannot stand in the way of the Constitution”. This is not a tenable position because the amounts paid by way of salaries, are extracted from the pockets of citizens by means of taxation. The Province and its Government can genuinely
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–15–
come to the conclusion that they are not prepared to burden the people of the Province by imposing an extra levy on them. It is not for the Service Tribunal to tell the Government of Punjab to impose additional taxes/levies for the purpose of meeting the command of the Service Tribunal. We are cognizant that there may still be duties imposed on Governments which are absolute and may require allocation or reallocation of financial resources with the object of ensuring performance of such duties. In an appropriate case this can be examined. However, this case does not raise such issues.
4. It is also important to bear in mind that Article 25 of the Constitution is only attracted where there is an apple-to-apple, comparison. In the present case, this is not the position because both sets of individuals i.e. Senior Auditors of the Federal Government (BPS-16) and Dy. Accountants of the Provincial Government (BPS-14) are not equally placed. There is an obvious criterion which differentiates the two categories i.e. they are employed by different employers with different financial and other resources. Thus a very fundamental issue of federalism has arisen in this case. If the reasoning of the Service Tribunal is upheld, tomorrow a Province or the Federation which is more affluent than other Provinces and is prepared to raise the salaries of its employees or as a policy decides that government servants should be paid according to the market salaries it will not be constitutionally permissible for a Court to hold that the Province which is less affluent should pay the same emoluments and provide the same perquisites as has been done by the more affluent Province. The federation and each of the Provinces exercise independent powers as per distribution of powers set out in Chapter 1 of Part V of the Constitution. This indeed is the essence of a truly federal constitutional structure…..”
11. It is important to observe over here that though Special Incentives for the persons having MBA/MPA/MAS degrees was initially introduced on 04.06.1991 by virtue of Admin Order No.24/1991 which remained under constant amendment in the following years but the petitioners instead of challenging
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–16–
the basic policy and the subsequent amendments made therein only confined their prayer to the extent of Office Order No.13/2011. If the petitioners were of the view that the incentive on the basis of higher/specific qualification was discriminatory they should have put a challenge to the rest of the Office Orders issued in respect of the said Policy.
12. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioners adopted clear cut plea that as the petitioners have put challenge to the policy introduced by the PIA instant petition is maintainable. It is well established by now this Court rarely uses its Constitutional jurisdiction to undo a policy framed by the competent authority. However, in the cases where it offends against any fundamental right or clear cut provision of a legislative piece, this Court feels no hesitation to undo the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Asaf Fasihuddin Khan Vardag v. Government of Pakistan and others (2014 SCMR 676) while highlighting the guidelines for interference by the superior courts in the Policy enunciated by the executive has inter-alia observed as under: –
“46.*****The interference with the decision making process is warranted where it is vitiated on account of arbitrariness, illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety or where it is actuated by mala fides………………The reservations or restrictions, if any, in that behalf should not be arbitrary and must be justifiable on the basis of some policy or valid principles,
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–17–
which themselves are reasonable and not discriminatory. It was further observed that any transaction, which is not transparent, and goes against the interest of the general public constitutes violation of Article 9 of the Constitution, which guarantees right to life to all persons.”
If the case of the petitioners is considered on the touchstone of the afore-quoted judgment there leaves no ambiguity that they do not qualify the test laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan to interfere with a policy issued by the competent authority. Even otherwise, it is upto the competent authority to introduce policies for better output from its subordinates with specific reference to the nature and requirements of the duties of a post. There is no denying the fact that PIA is a commercial entity and in this era of competition it cannot compete with other airlines if it does not introduce special incentives for the employees who are equipped with knowledge of business/ public administration as they cannot be equated with the persons having simple graduate/master degrees.
13. To be precise, the petitioners have challenged eligibility of the respondents to hold the posts of PG-VI on the ground that the MBA degrees issued in their favour are not valid inter-alia for the reasons that as there was no Campus of the University either in Lahore or Islamabad and the respondents being regular employees of PIA could not attend MBA classes.
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–18–
Firstly taking up question regarding non-existence of the campuses of the University in Lahore or Islamabad, I am of the view that learned counsel representing the respondents has referred to communication, dated 12.06.2007, addressed by the Registrar of the University to the Chairman, Pak Lawrence Institute, Lahore regarding provisional affiliation of the said institute with the University relevant part thereof reads as under: –
“I am directed to inform you that the Competent Authority has been pleased to grant Provisional Affiliation to your Institute w.e.f. 2002 to offer BBA, MBA, BCS, and MCS…………”
It is not the case of the petitioners that the affiliation was not bestowed by the University upon the aforesaid institute. Further, they have not disputed the fact that said institution was functioning in Lahore at the relevant time. In this state of affairs objection of the learned counsel for the petitioners that degrees have been issued in favour of the respondents on the basis of examinations held at the places where the University had no campus, is not worth consideration.
14. It is not out of place to observe that question regarding validity of degrees issued by the University on the basis of studies undertaken in the campuses beyond territorial jurisdiction of AJK was exhaustively dealt in the case of
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–19–
Muhammad Anwar Ansari (Supra) wherein while clinching the issue, under discussion, this Court has inter-alia observed as under: –
17. In the present case, the petitioner’s case is on a weak footing as the respondents have placed on record his degree of B.Cs. along with secondary school certificate, intermediate certificate as R/1, R/2 and R/3. R/3 is a degree of B.Cs. no doubt issued ‘by Al-Khair University is duly verified by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan as is available on the back of this document. The degree is verified on. 10th of October, 2010. The respondents have also shown in Court the original degree which was compared with R/3 and returned.
18. This is not the case of petitioner that he casted his vote in favour of respondent and due to his misrepresentation and fraud that he is graduate and fulfilled the condition of law, the petitioner has been cheated. The case of petitioner is that he is voter in the constituency from where the respondent was elected as Member of Provincial Assembly and as such he is not directly an aggrieved person.
19. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed on record an extract of press release of Higher Education Commission which is also available on website of Al-Khair University which read as under:–
“A press release said to safeguard interests of students and ensure provision of quality education in Pakistan, the HEC had directed that Al-Khair University must stop all new admissions and that the commission would not recognize any degree issued to students by the university after April 30, 2009.”
20. Admittedly, the respondent No.2’s degree was issued in pursuance of examination held in March/April, 2000 for a Session 1998-2000 and as such prima facie the respondent No.2’s degree has a status of genuine degree in terms of press not of HEC.
21. As the respondent No.2, prima facie, has succeeded to establish on record that he is holding a genuine degree
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–20–
of graduation (B.Cs) and, as such, this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction could not enter into factual controversy for recording evidence for ascertaining the real facts or to look into the allegation of petitioner.”
Further, the similar situation also came under discussion before a learned Division Bench of Balochistan High Court in the case of Munir Akhtar Awan and others (Supra) which decided the issue, under discussion, inter-alia observing as under: –
“By not allowing them to apply to the Bar Council, amounts to discrimination, because of the fact that all the petitioners who were getting their legal education from Al-Khair University at Quetta before the resolution, were also under the bona fide impression that it has duly been affiliated by the University of Balochistan. In our view, it is the fault of Al-Khair University on one hand, by not properly applying to the Balochistan University for affiliation and on the other hand, Balochistan University is at fault by simply issuing NOC for establishment of said Campus. Though NOC is not equivalent to affiliation, but still it had an impression on the raw minded students that the Campus at Quetta is working legally and lawfully, thus, for the mistaken act or fault of both the Universities, the students already got admissions or obtained degrees therefrom, before the resolution of Pakistan Bar Council will not be penalized.”
Insofar as case in hand is concerned, degrees issued in favour of the respondents are based on the examinations held in the years 2007 or prior. It is imperative to note that according to the version of PIA, promotion of the respondents was subject to verification of their degrees by the HEC. Upon the move of the department, HEC verified the degrees issued in favour of the respondents and promotion of the respondents was regularized in PG-VI. When question regarding validity of degrees issued
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–21–
by University on the basis of education imparted in the campuses functioning beyond the territorial jurisdiction of AJK prior to 30.04.2009 has been put to rest by this Court as well as by the learned Division Bench of the Balochistan High Court same cannot be allowed to be re-opened by any forum including PIA or FIA authorities.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners with a view to impeach the credibility of the degrees issued in favour of the respondents has referred to letter bearing No.16-08/HEC/A&A/2014, dated 05.05.2014, addressed by the Assistant Director (Accreditation & Attestation), HEC, Islamabad to the Additional Director FIA Lahore. A close examination of the said communication shows that the same related to an inquiry started by FIA qua the admissions undertaken w.e.f. 30.04.2009 to 16.10.2011. As the degrees were issued in favour of the respondents on the basis of the examinations held in the year 2007 or prior, the said communication cannot be used to their disinterest.
16. Insofar as the issuance of letters of displeasures, dated 20.10.2015, to the respondents by the Deputy General Manager HR Marketing Department are concerned, suffice it to note that as it is evident from the contents of the said letters that the
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–22–
competent authority only showed his displeasure regarding non obtaining of prior permission but did not utter even a word about authenticity of the degrees. Further, completion of MBA degree without prior permission of the competent authority can only be considered as procedural flaw for which the competent authority was at liberty to proceed against the respondents at the relevant time but the said fact cannot be used to shatter the credibility of the degrees issued in their favour importantly when the same have been verified by the HEC for more than once.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioners has emphatically argued that as Wajid Saleem and Ms. Qaisra Tabassum (two of the respondents) have been asked to provide original degrees for verification purposes, the plea of the respondents that their degrees were earlier verified by HEC is not sustainable. In this regard, I am of the view that demand of the department from some of the respondents to provide their original degrees does not lend any support to the petitioners’ version simply for the reason that the competent authority can ask any of its subordinate to provide original testimonials for verification purposes irrespective of the fact whether they were earlier verified by the relevant quarter or not but by no stretch of imagination said fact can be used against the respondents
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–23–
especially when nothing adverse in respect of the genuineness of their MBA degrees is on the scene.
18. To be brief, the petitioners are aggrieved of FTPP introduced by PIA through Admin Officer Order No.10/2011, dated 20.05.2011 whereby in addition to earlier incentive for MBA/MPA/MAS degree holders, some more incentives were also introduced whereas in the subsequent Office Order No.13/2011 only period of 3 years in PG-V was reduced to one year. As the petitioners have not specifically assailed the vires of Admin Office Order No.10/2011 their prayer for setting aside of the subsequent Admin Office Order No.13/2011 cannot be acceded to.
19. According to the petitioners due to introduction of FTPP their right of promotion to PG-VI has badly been affected. As the petitioners failed to point out infringement of any of their fundamental right or the Policy in question offends against any clear cut law their request cannot be blessed with acceptance. Further, admittedly Mudassar Hassan Rana, one of the petitioners has already been promoted to PG-VI in terms of the policy prevalent for promotion of the Admin category, he cannot press into service the point of discrimination. Moreover, Muhammad Khalid Javed, being only intermediate, cannot be
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–24–
equated with a person having MBA/MPA/MAS degree as he is not eligible for promotion even under general policy as minimum qualification for promotion in PG-VI is graduation. More importantly, Muhammad Arshad Khan (already terminated from service) and Mudassar Hafeez Butt (already retired) being no more in service to their extent instant petition has become redundant.
20. While addressing the court learned counsel for the petitioners has raised specific objection qua right of audience of the respondents. There is no denying the fact that on the preliminary date of hearing notices were only issued to respondents No.3 to 5 only, however, on 09.08.2012 all the parties were put to notice. Further, when in the connected petitions, filed by the respondents, notices have already been issued to the petitioners, they (respondents) cannot be deprived of their right to address the court importantly when all the matters have been ordered to be heard together.
21. It is well entrenched by now that promotion against a particular post cannot be claimed as a matter of right rather the competent authority reserves the right to adjudge the eligibility of a person for promotion by formulating a policy. If the competent authority is of the view that by introducing a
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–25–
separate policy for the persons having MBA/MPA/MAS degrees, the promotion prospects of the persons not possessing such degrees would not be infringed and on the other the department would be able to have the services of more suitable persons having professional qualification the request of the petitioners for promotion in PG-VI cannot be considered as fundamental right. While dealing with the question regarding promotion of a government servant against a particular post and the jurisdiction of superior courts, the apex Court of the country in the case of Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others v. Hayat Hussain and others (2016 SCMR 1021) has inter-alia held as under: –
“8. It is a settled proposition of law that the Government is entitled to make rules in the interest of expediency of service and to remove anomalies in Service Rules. It is the Service Rules Committee which has to determine the eligibility criteria of promotion and it is essentially an administrative matter falling within the exclusive domain and policy decision making of the Government and the interference with such matters by the Courts is not warranted and that no vested right of a Government employee is involved in the matter of promotion or the rules determining their eligibility or fitness, and the High Court has no jurisdiction by means of writ to strike it down as held by this Court in the case of The Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan v. Asad Ahmad Khan (PLD 1960 SC 81)”
As per the ratio decidendi of the afore-quoted judgment of the apex Court of the country no person can claim promotion as a matter of right until and unless he fulfills the eligibility criteria.
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–26–
As far as the case in hand is concerned, as the petitioners are not possessing MBA/MPA/MAS degrees they cannot claim promotion on the analogy of the respondents.
22. Learned counsel for the petitioners has put much emphasis on the fact that while serving in the department the respondents could not attend MBA classes, thus, the degrees issued in their favour have no legal backing. In this regard, I disagree with the learned counsel for the reason that firstly according to the duty roster employees of PIA perform their duties in 12 hours shift pattern. In addition thereto, there is also rotation policy according to which after performing night duty for 12 hours there is rest of 48 hours and in case day shift the permissible rest is 24 hours. The said fact can be verified from the entries of Daily Attendance Register attached with this petition inasmuch as on number of occasions in the column of presence the employee concerned has been shown as “off”. Further, it is of common knowledge that the educational institutions running in a private sector especially in metropolitan cities like Lahore have their classes even in three shifts, thus, said plea of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be given any weightage.
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–27–
23. During the course of arguments learned counsel representing PIA produced copy of proclamation got published by HEC whereby public-at-large was sensitized about the fact that any degree issued by the University on the basis of study undertaken in any campus beyond the territorial jurisdiction of AJK, after 30.04.2009, would not be acknowledged by HEC meaning thereby that the degrees issued before 30.04.2009 were validated. The said fact has also been dilated upon by the learned Division Bench of the Balochistan High Court in the case referred Supra. In this scenario, this Court cannot enter into arena of factual inquiry as to whether the respondents attended classes or not as it does not fall within the domain of this Court.
24. Now reverting to connected petitions, a bare perusal of the complaint submitted by Mudassar Hassan Rana etc. before FIA authorities shows that though the same was filed in the year 2013 but they did not make any mention about the fact of filing this petition in the year 2011 challenging promotion of the respondents on the basis of alleged forged and invalid MBA degrees. As the factum of pendency of proceedings before this Court was not disclosed by the complainant, the FIA authorities while taking cognizance of the matter issued notices to the respondents for their personal appearance. Though they joined
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–28–
proceedings and apprised the FIA authorities that not only their degrees have been verified for more than once by HEC but also matter is pending adjudication before this Court in a Constitutional petition they further requested the FIA authorities to take off their hands but instead of acceding to the innocent request of the respondents, the FIA authorities continued proceedings compelling respondents No.6 to 10 to file connected petitions.
25. At the cost of repetition it is re-iterated that as degrees issued in favour of the respondents have already been validated by HEC for more than once, the FIA authorities cannot be allowed to re-open the matter under the garb of complaint filed by Mudassar Hassan Rana etc. concealing material facts, in particular the filing of this petition on the same subject. After conclusion by this Court that degrees issued in favour of the respondents were genuine in nature continuation of proceedings before FIA authorities would amount to double jeopardy. In the cases referred Supra when it has already been declared by this Court as well as learned Division Bench of Balochistan High Court that the degrees issued by the University prior to 30.04.2009 are valid, the FIA authorities have no justification to proceed with the complaint filed by the petitioners and others. This Court is cognizant of the fact that proceedings in a
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–29–
criminal case cannot be halted, however, when those run contrary to any verdict of a superior Court or would ultimately end in smoke the same cannot be allowed to remain in field rather deserves to be curbed with full force. Reliance in this regard is placed on the cases reported as Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed and 3 others (2000 SCMR 122), Mst. Mehrun Nisa v. Zainulabidin and 5 others (1995 SCMR 1139) and Haji Muhammad Latif v. Farman Ali and another (1990 SCMR 1299).
26. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the Deputy Attorney General have taken the stance that as the proceedings pending before FIA authorities have no nexus with the instant petition, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court. Perhaps said plea has been raised by both sides in oblivion of the fact that while filing their reply in the petition filed by the petitioners under section 22-A & B Cr.P.C. before the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, the FIA authorities inter-alia took the following stance: –
“It is submitted that enquiry No.1/2014 of FIA/CCC was initiated on written complaint of the petitioner. The complainant alleged the different employees of PIA were promoted on the basis fake/Bogus degrees. In this regard a detailed enquiry was conducted by Muhammad Sarwar SHO/Inspector/FIA/CCC Lahore, who submitted detailed report recommending there in that the matter is pending before Honorable Lahore High Court Lahore and to avoid double jeopardy, it is recommended that either the
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–30–
enquiry be dropped at FIA and or be kept pending till the decision of Honourable Lahore High Court Lahore. The competent Authority after considering all the circumstances closed the subject enquiry vide letter dated 10-11-2014. Later the enquiry was reopened by the competent authority vide letter No.DPL/E-86/2013/FIA/CCC/LHR/ under the order of session court dated 23-12-2014 and entrusted to undersigned.
After reopening the enquiry the complainant was summoned to provide any fresh evidence. The complainants provided written statements but could not provide any further evidence. The statements of alleged persons were also recorded.
Detailed enquiry has been conducted in the matter, during the enquiry it transpired that the alleged employees of PIA obtained their degrees from Al-Khair University Lahore Campus and Al-Khair University AJK verified their degrees……” (emphasis provided)
In view of the aforesaid clear cut stance of FIA authorities before a Court of law renders it more than clear that they have got verified the degrees of the respondents from the University and the same were found genuine. In this backdrop the continuation of proceedings before FIA authorities amounts to misuse of law by the petitioners.
27. Admittedly, the petitioners are serving employees of PIA and have put a challenge to Promotion Policy issued by the department in addition to calling in question the promotion orders of the respondents. As terms & conditions of employees of PIA are governed under non-statutory rules, instant petition filed on their behalf is not maintainable. The apex Court of the country, in its recent judgment PIA Corporation v. Syed
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–31–
Suleman Alam Rizvi and others (2015 SCMR 1545) while clinching the issue under discussion has held that Constitutional petition filed by employees of a Corporation having non-statutory rules, is not maintainable.
28. As a necessary corollary to the discussion made in the fore-going paragraphs I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioners have miserably failed to make out a case for interference in the Promotion Policy under which the respondents were promoted to PG-VI. Further, no concrete material proving the degrees possessed by the respondents as invalid has been produced by them. Consequently, this petition (W.P. No.14338/2011) is dismissed with no order as to cost.
29. Insofar as connected petitions (W.P. Nos.7086/2014, 7135/2014, 7165/2014, 7167/2014 and 7168/2014) are concerned, as this Court has already concluded that the degrees possessed by the respondents (petitioners in connected petitions) are valid especially after authentication for more than once by HEC, FIA authorities have no power to proceed with the complaint filed by Mudassar Hassan Rana etc. Resultantly, connected petitions are allowed and the proceedings pending before FIA authorities are quashed. As a result, the
W.P. No.14338 of 2011.
–32–
complainant filed by Mudassar Hassan Rana etc. before FIA authorities shall stand dismissed.
(Shujaat Ali Khan)
Judge
Announced in Open Court today i.e. 08.02.2017. Approved for Reporting.