Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 2023-12-31, officially reported as 2024 SCMR 956. In this matter between Pakistan Engineering Council through its Chairman & others and Taj JUDGMENT, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.

Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Mussarat Hilali, Qazi Faez Isa (C.J) Title:Pakistan Engineering Council through its Chairman & others vs Taj

JUDGMENT

Reported As: 2024 SCP 130, 2024 SCMR 956, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 746, PLJ 2024 SC 659 Result: Appeal Allowed Judgment JUDGMENT Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J. These Civil Appeals with leave of the Court are directed against the judgment dated 21.02.2013 passed by the Peshawar High Court whereby the Writ Petition No.1124/2006 filed by the respondent was allowed; the judgment dated 07.10.2013, passed by the Peshawar High Court whereby F.A.O.71/2011 filed by the appellant was dismissed, and the judgment dated 17.01.2017 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, whereby the Intra Court Appeals No.157 and 275/2011 filed by the appellants were dismissed. 2. The precise facts of the civil appeals are as under: - I) C.A.No.1471/2013 The respondent No.1 applied for admission in M.Sc. Engineering in KPK (NWFP) University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar. During scrutiny, it was revealed that the respondent No.1 did not possess the pre-requisite qualification for admission in M.Sc. According to the University Rules and Regulations, the qualification of B.Tech. (Hons.) was not equivalent to B.Sc. Engineering; therefore, he was declared ineligible for admission. The respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition No.1124/2006 in the Peshawar High Court, which was allowed vide impugned Judgment dated 21.02.2013. II) C.A. Nos.53/2014 The appellant obtained a B.Tech degree from KPK University of Engineering & Technology, Peshawar. The respondent invited applications for recruitment for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (BPS-17) in the Civil Engineering Department of Pakistan Railways, prescribing that

---

## Page 2

candidates must hold a Bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering or an equivalent qualification. The candidature of the appellant was provisionally accepted and he was called upon to provide his registration with the Pakistan Engineering Council but the appellant failed to provide such a Registration Certificate. Hence, his candidature was rejected. The appellant filed a Review Petition which was dismissed on 29.06.2011; hence, he filed F.A.O.71/2011 in the Peshawar High Court which was also dismissed vide Judgment dated 07.10.2013. III) C.A. Nos. 187 to 191/2013 The respondents No. 1 to 4 filed Writ Petition No. 5578/10 in the Lahore High Court with the plea that they possess the qualification of B.Tech. (Hons.) in Electrical (Power) Technology and are performing duties as Line Superintendent. On 20.05.2010, the Board of Directors of the appellant, convened its 66th meeting wherein an Agenda No. 9 was approved according to which 09 Seats were allocated to Diploma Holders & 03 Seats were allocated to B.Tech. (Hons.) for promotion from LS-I to Junior Engineer/SDO. The Writ Petition was allowed and the decision of the management on Agenda No. 9 was declared without lawful authority. On similar notion, another Writ Petition No.5040/2010 was also allowed. The appellants filed Intra Court Appeals No.157 and 275/2011 which were dismissed by the High Court vide impugned consolidated judgment dated 17.01.2017. 3. Initially, the leave to appeal was granted by this Court in C.P.No.235-P of 2013 (C.A.1471/2013) on 05.12.2013 in the following terms: - "Petitioners' learned counsel, inter alia, contends that the learned High Court did not appreciate that to grant equivalence of the B.Tech Hons with B.E./B.Sc Engineering, it had no jurisdiction and the power fell in the exclusive domain of the Pakistan Engineering Council/petitioner under section 2 & 8 of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner's leave is granted, inter-alia, to consider the issue raised. CMA No. 411-P/2013 Notice. In the meanwhile, the impugned judgment shall remain suspended." Based on the aforesaid leave granting order, the leave was also granted in similar terms in other civil petitions which were converted into appeals and fixed together for decision. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants in CA No. 1471/2013 argued that the admission of respondent No.1 was cancelled in view of Rule 1.1 of the Post-Graduate Prospectus 2005-2006 of the University of Engineering & Technology, Peshawar. It was further averred that according to the provisions of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 ("PEC Act"), the Pakistan Engineering Council ("PEC") can only register individuals who have qualified with a B.E/B.Sc. Engineering degree. He further argued that the Higher Education Commission ("HEC") can only determine the standing of two degrees at comparable levels but there is a difference between equivalence and accreditation. The former is the domain of the HEC and the latter is the mandate of the PEC (appellant) for which HEC recognizes that insofar as interchangeability or accreditation or authorizing the same status is concerned, it is the domain of the respective regulatory/accreditation council. In support of his contention, the learned counsel referred to the judgments passed by this Court in the case of Maula Bux Shaikh vs. Chief Minister Sindh & others (2018 SCMR 2098), Fida Hussain vs. Secretary Kashmir Affairs (1996 PLC (C.S) 44) and Muhammad Sadiq vs. University of Sindh & another (PLD 1996 Supreme Court 182). 5. In CA No. 1471/2013, Muhammad Farooq Malik, Deputy District Officer (Roads) Kharian, District Gujrat, filed CMA No. 5008 2014 under Order (V) Rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, to be impleaded as a necessary and proper party as an office bearer of the Pakistan Diploma Engineers Federation (Regd.) and the B. Tech. Graduates Society (Regd.), which application was allowed. He, in-person, addressed that though the controversy is regarding the cancellation of the admission of

---

## Page 3

respondent No.1, he is only concerned with the issue of equivalence. He argued that B.Tech. (Hons.) individuals are agitating promotion matters in light of the judgment of this Court in Suo Motu Review Petition, reported as PLD 1995 SC 701. Despite settling the issue, the appellant is continuously interfering in the equivalence of B.Tech. (Hons.) vis--vis B.E/B.Sc. Engineering qualification. He also relied on the decision of the University Grants Commission ("UGC") dated 12th February, 1998, wherein it was decided that the degree of B.Tech. (Hons.) is not similar to B.E./B.Sc. Engineering degree but both the degrees are to be considered as two distinct disciplines of knowledge in the field of Engineering and Technology and should run parallel to each other. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant in C.A. Nos.53/2014, argued that the degree of B.Tech. has always been considered as equivalent to B.Sc. Engineering, thus the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of B.Tech. Degree not being equivalent to B.Sc. Engineering was illegal. He further contended for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (BPS-17) Civil Engineering, there was no requirement of registration with the PEC. He also referred to the judgment passed by this Court in Suo Muto Review Petition No. 52 of 1993 and argued that the PEC has no authority to oppose equivalency to the B.Tech. (Hons.) degree which is the function of the HEC. 7. The Deputy Director, Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC), addressed in C.A. Nos.53/2014, that 09 posts of Assistant Executive Engineers in the Civil Engineering Department of Pakistan Railways were advertised on receipt of requisition from the Ministry of Railway with a prescribed qualification of Bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering or equivalent qualification. The B.Tech. (Hons.) degree in Civil Engineering has not been declared by the PEC as equivalent to the required qualification of Bachelor degree in Civil Engineering. A meeting was convened on 19.02.2011, wherein the representative of the PEC stated that "Technology" and "Engineering" are two separate and distinct streams, with different, distinct syllabi and programme objectives. In the recent past, PEC in its 22nd Annual General Body Meeting has adopted two resolutions regarding the non-equivalence of the B.Tech. degree to the B.E. degree. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant in C.A. Nos. 187 to 191/2013, argued that B.Tech. (Hons.) is not at par with B.Sc. Engineering Degree. The B.Tech. holders are not allowed registration with the PEC. It was further averred that the first and second Schedule of the PEC Act, 1976 read with Sections 10, 11, and 16 debar B.Tech. (Hons.) to be considered equivalent to B.Sc. Professional Engineers as both have different characteristics and disciplines. He further argued that High Court had no jurisdiction to declare B.Tech. (Hons.) equivalent or at par with a B.Sc. Professional Engineering Degree. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents in C.A. Nos. 187 to 191/2013, argued that the respondents were promoted as SDO/Junior Engineer-17 in 2004 and 2005 respectively. They acquired degree of B.Tech. (Hons.) Electrical, therefore, the issue of promotion is a matter between the employer and the employee which has nothing to do with the PEC. It was further contended that the employer is free to ask for any qualification. It was further averred that the HEC vide letter dated 29.03.2019 decided that that both the degrees of B.E/B.Sc. Engineering and B.Tech. (Hons.) are two distinct disciplines of knowledge in the field of Engineering and Technology but should run parallel to each other. It was further averred that the High Court in its judgments rightly set aside the decision of the Board of Directors dated 20.5.2010 of the appellant (MEPCO) wherein an Agenda No.9 was approved for allocating only 03 Seats to B.Tech. (Hons.) for promotion from LS-I to Junior Engineer/SDO. 10. The learned Additional Attorney General argued that the UGC, predecessor of the HEC, resolved on 25.11.1981 that the B.Tech. (Hons.) degree, awarded by Polytechnic Institutions/Universities, be considered at par with B.Sc. Engineering degree awarded by other Universities in Pakistan. However, UGC's Equivalence Committee on 04.01.1983 and 12.02.1998 concluded that the degree of B.Tech. (Hons.) is not similar to B.E/B.Sc. Engineering degree. It was further contended that the National Curriculum Revision Committee ("NCRC") in the year 2010 also acknowledged that both degrees

---

## Page 4

are two distinct disciplines of knowledge and HEC constituted a Committee of Experts for recommendations on the same subject matter and recommendations of the NCRC were placed before HEC's Committee of Experts on 11.03.2014. The Committee of Experts unanimously endorsed the recommendations of NCRC. In support of his contention, he also referred to the case of Maula Bux Shaikh, reported as 2018 SCM R 2098. It was further argued that HEC's mandate to determine equivalence under Section 10(1)(o) of the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002 ("HEC Ordinance") is limited to the extent of standing of a degree or level of education which includes the number of schooling years, credit hours gained during program, and recognition of foreign degrees but HEC cannot encroach upon the domain of the PEC. He also pointed out that there is a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") between HEC and PEC which recognizes that substantial equivalence, authorization, and accreditation of engineering qualification can only be issued by the by the PEC which is responsible for granting engineering professional equivalence in consultation with the HEC. He referred to Sections 10 and 11 of PEC Act in support of his submissions and also relied on the judgment in the case of Muhammad Sadiq reported as PLD 1996 SC 182 and Fida Hussain case, reported as 1996 PLC (C.S) 44. 11. Heard the arguments. The admission of respondent No.1 (C.A.No.1471/2013) in M.Sc. Engineering in KPK (NWFP) University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar was cancelled in view of the "Postgraduate Prospectus 2005-2006" of the University wherein according to Regulation 1.1(b), candidates seeking admission to M.Sc. Degree Programme must have a Bachelor's Degree in a relevant Engineering discipline from an institution accredited by the PEC and since the B.Tech. (Hons.) qualification was not equivalent to B.Sc. Engineering; therefore, he was declared ineligible for admission. In the affairs of admission and examination in the educational institutions, the concerned authorities are vested with the powers and jurisdiction to lay down the eligibility criteria in their own rules, regulations, or prospectus. They are independent to follow their own policy for admission, and in other affairs, therefore, the academic, administrative, and disciplinary autonomy of a university must be respected. The interference by the courts in the admission policy would give rise to glitches for the said institutions to administer the matters harmoniously and efficiently. The educational institutions are competent to manage their own affairs without any outside intervention from executive or judicial organs unless they contravene or disregard the compass of their authority or act in breach of applicable statutes or admission policies as laid down in the prospectus. There is no ambiguity in the eligibility criteria mentioned in the prospectus; hence, it was not open to any other interpretation. Nothing on record shows that while cancelling admission of the respondent No.1, the University committed any act in violation of their rules and regulations. The petitioner failed to achieve the admission criteria and hence, he was not entitled to admission. It was neither fair nor just or equitable to interfere into affairs falling into the exclusive domain of the university and its academia, therefore, the learned High Court was not justified to intervene in the admission policy which does not seem to be discriminatory or unlawful but is a fair benchmark for applying for admission in the M.Sc. Degree Programme. Reference may be made to following case law: 1. Noor Muhammad Khan Marwat vs. Vice Chancellor, Gomal University (PLD 2001 219). There is another aspect of the case. Universities have always been considered to be centres of high excellence where higher education is imparted and research facilities are regulated through its own discipline. Prominent jurists, educationists and research scholars are assigned administrative as well as educational and research assignments for achieving the object of higher education. Such authorities, generally speaking, are competent to administer their own affairs without outside interference from executive or judicial organs. Unless University authorities transgress the scope of their authority or

---

## Page 5

act in violation of the statute, Courts are always loath to interfere with the smooth administration of universities. 2. Muhammad Ilyas v. Bahauddin Zakariya University (2005 SCMR 961). At the outset it may be noted that as far as the rules/regulations framed by the University Authorities for the purpose of conductive/regularizing examination etc. of University are concerned these are required to be interpreted by the University Authorities itself and Courts should avoid to interpret the same unless a case of grave injustice is not made out otherwise it would become difficult for University administration to run its internal affairs relating to examination, etc... therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. 3. Secretary Economic Affairs Division, Islamabad v. Anwarul-Haq Ahmed (2013 SCMR 1687). The educational institutions are independent to follow policy for admission including affairs relating to changing conditions for endowment funds or fee, either under the policy given by the government or adopted by the college; and interference in the policy by the Court is possible only in exceptional circumstances. 4. Murad Ali Khan v. Vice Chancellor, University of Health Sciences, Lahore (2016 SCMR 134). It is a settled law that in matters of admission and examination in educational institutions, the University authorities concerned are the sole judges of the criteria laid down in the prospectus. The Courts in such matters desist from interfering due to the reason that it would create difficulties for the said institutions to run its affairs in an appropriate manner according to their rules and regulations. 5. Khyber Medical University and others v. Aimal Khan and others (PLD 2022 SC 92). The self- restraint by the courts in matter of educational institutions is based on the wisdom that academic freedom and institutional autonomy of the universities must be protected and safeguarded. Academic freedom is not merely liberty from restraints on thought, expression, and association in the university, but also that the university should have the freedom to make decisions about the educational matters including disciplinary matters. As it is the business of a university to provide that atmosphere which is most conducive to speculation, experiment, and creation. It is an atmosphere in which there prevail the four essential freedoms of a university; who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught and who may be admitted to study. 12. The purpose of constituting the PEC under the PEC Act is to make provisions for the regulation of the engineering profession and to regulate the engineering profession with the vision that the engineering profession shall function as a key driving force for achieving rapid and sustainable growth in all national, economic, and social fields and maintain realistic and internationally relevant standards of professional competence and ethics for engineers, and license engineers, and engineering institutions, to competently and professionally promote and uphold the standards and the Council, covering the entire spectrum of engineering disciplines, functions as an apex body to encourage and promote the pursuit of excellence in engineering profession, and to regulate the quality of engineering education and the practice of engineering. The definitions provided under Section 2 of the PEC Act which are relevant to decide the present controversy are reproduced as under: - (i) "Accreditation Committee" means the Accreditation Committee constituted under sub-section (1) of section 14; (ii) "accredited engineering qualification" means any of the qualification included in the First Schedule or the Second Schedule; (viii) "Council" means the Pakistan Engineering Council constituted under section 3; (xxiii) "professional engineer" means a person who holds an accredited engineering qualification and after obtaining a professional experience of five years, whether working privately or in the

---

## Page 6

employment of an engineering public organization, has passed the prescribed engineering practice examination and is registered as such by the Council; (xxv) "professional engineering work" means the giving of professional advice and opinions, the making of measurements and layouts, the preparation of reports, computations, designs, drawings, plans and specifications and the construction, inspection, and supervision of engineering works, in respect of - (a) railways, aerodromes, bridges, tunnels, and metalled roads; (b) dams, canals, harbours, light houses; (c) works of an electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, communication, aeronautical power engineering, geological or mining character; (d) waterworks, sewers, filtration, purification, and incinerator works; (e) residential and non-residential buildings, including foundations framework and electrical and mechanical systems thereof; (f) structures accessory to engineering works and intended to house them; (g) imparting or promotion of engineering education, training and planning, designing, development construction, commissioning, operation, maintenance and management of engineering works in respect of computer engineering, environmental engineering, chemical engineering, structural engineering, industrial engineering, production engineering, marine engineering and naval architecture, petroleum and gas engineering, metallurgical engineering, agricultural engineering, telecommunication engineering, avionics and space engineering, transportation engineering, air-conditioning ventilation, cold storage works, system engineering, electronics, radio and television engineering, civil engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering and biomedical engineering etc.; (h) organizing, managing, and conducting the teaching and training in engineering universities, colleges, institutions, Government colleges of technology, polytechnic institutions, and technical training institutions; (i) preparing standard bidding or contract documents, construction cost data, conciliation, and arbitration procedures; guidelines for bid evaluation, prequalification and price adjustments for construction and consultancy contracts; and (j) any other work which the Council may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare to be an engineering work for the purposes of this Act; (xxvii) "registered engineer" means a person who holds an accredited engineering qualification, whether working privately or in the employment of an engineering public organization and is registered as such by the Council. Registered Engineer shall perform all professional engineering works except independently signing design; (xxviii) "registered" means registered under this Act; 13. The Functions of the PEC are provided under Section 8 of the PEC Act which inter alia include as under: - "(a) maintenance of a Register of persons qualified to work as registered engineers, professional engineers, consulting engineers, constructors, and operators; (b) accreditation of engineering qualifications for the purpose of registration of registered engineers, professional engineers c) removal of names from the Register and restoration to the Register of names which have been removed" 14. While the objective of the HEC Ordinance (which repealed "The University Grants Commission Act, 1974") is to provide the establishment of the HEC in the interest of improvement and promotion of higher education, research, and development. The powers and functions of the HEC are laid down under Section 10 of the HEC Ordinance for the evaluation, improvement, and promotion of

---

## Page 7

higher education, research, and development. Clause (o) of the aforesaid functions germane to the grant of equivalence, which is reproduced as under: - "(o) determine the equivalence and recognition of degrees, diplomas and certificates awarded by Institutions within the country and aboard" 15. The chronicle of events bring to light that on October 26, 1973, pursuant to the decision of the Federal Government, the Ministry of Education had issued a policy letter wherein, it was conveyed that "B.Tech. (Hons.) shall be treated at par with B.Sc. (Engineering)/B.E. degree". Likewise, the erstwhile UGC Equivalence Committee resolved on 25.11.1981 in the 10th meeting of Equivalence Committee that "B.Tech. (Hons.) degree awarded by Polytechnic Institutions/Universities be considered at par with B.Sc. (Engg.) degree awarded by other Institutions/Universities in Pakistan". However, in the 11th Meeting of the erstwhile UGC's Equivalence Committee convened on 04.01.1983, it was resolved that the degree of B.Tech. (Hons.) be not considered as equivalent to the B.E degree but the two must be considered as two distinct disciplines of knowledge in the field of Engineering and Technology and both streams should run parallel to each other. However, B.Tech. (Hons.) degree holders may be treated at par with B.E./B.Sc. Eng. degree holders as far as grades of pay etc. are concerned but these two degrees would not be considered the same at any stage. Yet again on 12.02.1998, the erstwhile UGC's Equivalence Committee in its 39th meeting, resolved that the degree of B.Tech. (Hons.) is not similar to B.E./B.Sc. Engineering degree. Both the degrees of B.E./B.Sc. Engineering and B.Tech. (Hons.) be considered as two distinct disciplines of knowledge in the field of Engineering and Technology and should run parallel to each other. However, B.Tech. (Hons.) may be treated at par and compatible with B.E./B.Sc. Engineering degree holders as far as grades, pay and promotions and other benefits are concerned. It was further resolved that it is up to the employer to determine the type of qualification required for a particular job. 16. The record further reflects that the NCRC in 2010 made the recommendations that the letter issued by the HEC regarding the equivalency/compatibility of B.Tech. with B.Sc. Engineering must be withdrawn immediately to remove any confusion, because B.Tech. courses are implementation oriented and B.Sc. engineering courses…

Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Supreme Court of Pakistan
• Browse Pakistani court decisions from the year 2023
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant