FAROOQ HASSAN Versus MUMTAZ AHMED KHAN

1. The petitioner has challenged the election of the respondent to the Senate of Pakistan through this election petition. To fill a casual vacancy in the Senate against a seat reserved for "ulema, technocrats and other professionals", the Election Commission invited nominations. Nomination papers of 10 persons, including the petitioner and the respondents, were found to be valid in the scrutiny which took place on 29‑12‑1986. The last date for withdrawal of nominations for this election was 5‑1‑1987, on which date signed letters of eight candidates withdrawing their candidatures were submitted to the Election Commission which left only the petitioner and the respondent in the field. The poll was held on 7‑1‑1987. The electorate were the members of the Punjab Provincial Assembly. In the poll, 221 votes were cast and the result was as follows:‑‑

2. Votes cast in favour of the respondent 157

3. Votes cast in favour of the petitioner 12

4. Rejected ballot papers 52

5. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Total 221

7. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. As a result of the voting in the said bye‑election, the respondent was declared elected to the Senate of Pakistan from the Province of Punjab against one of the special seats and his election was notified by the Notification dated 8‑1‑1987 of the Election Commission of Pakistan.

2. As observed earlier, the petitioner has challenged the election of the respondent. This election petition was filed on 29‑3‑1987. The grounds taken in the memo. of the election petition are as follows:‑‑

(a) The respondent did not possess the qualifications required of a "technocrat" or "professional";

(b) The respondent first solicited and then campaigned for and received votes as the official candidate of the ruling Muslim League Party contrary to law;

(c) The respondent himself invalidated his nomination papers by swearing a false affidavit in support thereof; and

(d) The voters, who voted in favour of the respondent in the poll held on 7‑1‑1987, deliberately wasted or threw away their votes because they knew that they were voting for a person not qualified to represent ulema, technocrats and other professionals and as such the petitioner is entitled to be declared elected in place of the respondent.

9. The petitioner has prayed that the election of the respondent be declared void and the petitioner declared to have been duly elected in place of the respondent.

10. The respondent filed a written statement contesting the matter and denying the various allegations and averments made against him in the memo of the election petition.

3. By order dated 8‑3‑1987, this Tribunal settled the following issues

(1) Whether the respondent is neither a "technocrat" nor a "professional" as defined in the Explanation given in Article 5 of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order No. 5 of 1977?

(2) Whether the respondent was nominated or put up as their candidate by the Pakistan Muslim League in the election? If so, whether any notification has been issued by the Election Commission under subsection (3) of section 3‑C of the Political Parties Act 1962, and, if not, what is its effect?

(3) Whether the respondent was not qualified to be elected as he came within the mischief of sub‑clause (7‑c) of clause (b) of sub‑Article (2) of Article 10 of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977?

(4) Is the election of the respondent liable to be declared as void?

(5) If the answer of issue No. 4 is in the affirmative, is the petitioner entitled to be declared as having been duly elected?

(6) Relief.

11. On behalf of the petitioner, qtr. Ghulam Farid, Advocate (Exh.8), Mr. Sarwar Hussain Deputy Registrar, Punjab University (Exh.9), Mr. Shamsul Haq Advocate (Exh.ll) and Homeo Doctor Aqleem (Exh.12), appeared as witnesses. Petitioner also gave evidence (Exh. 14) and was cross‑examined at length. On behalf of the respondent Mian Muhammad Shafi (Meem Sheen) (Exh. 15) appeared as his only witness and the respondent also gave evidence. He was also cross‑examined at length. Two witnesses were also summoned and examined by the 'tribunal as Tribunal's witnesses and they were Mr. Muhammad Abdullah, Assistant Controller of Examinations, Punjab University (Exh. 10) and Mr. Muniruddin Chugtai, Pro‑Vice Chancellor, Punjab University (Exh. 13). Learned counsel appearing for the parties were allowed to cross‑examine these two witnesses. Evidence of the parties was completed on 5‑7‑1987. Arguments commenced on 12‑9‑1987 and Mr. Shahid Hamid, learned counsel for the petitioner addressed the Tribunal on 12th and 13th September and 8th October, 1987. Mr. Saqib Nisar, learned counsel for the respondent submitted his arguments on 10th, 24th, 25th and 26th October, 1987. Mr. Shahid Hamid, learned counsel for the petitioner, exercising his right of reply, concluded the arguments on 26th October, 1987. On conclusion of the arguments judgment was reserved..

4. It may be mentioned at the outset that during his arguments, Mr. Shahid Hamid, learned counsel for the petitioner, did not press issue No. 2 relating to the putting up or nomination of the respondent by the Pakistan Muslim League as their candidate. As this issue was framed on the basis of the averments made and grounds taken in the memo. of petition by the petitioner, but it is not being pressed by Mr. Shahid Hamid, it is not necessary to decide this issue.

5. I may also refer to ground No. (c) in Para 2 of this judgment. This ground has been taken specifically in Para 6(f) of the memo of petition and it was also pressed before me by Mr. Shahid Hamid, learned counsel for the petitioner, and it is to the effect that the respondent has sworn a false affidavit in support of his nomination papers inasmuch as the respondent has given false particulars in the nomination form in an effort to prove that he is a "technocrat" as well as a "professional". It is additionally averred by the petitioner that "the respondent has falsely claimed in column 14 of his nomination form that he had never been involved in a criminal case." I have not been persuaded to grant any relief to the petitioner on this ground. Firstly, this ground had been specifically taken in the memo of petition but no request was made to get an issue framed on this ground, on 8‑3‑1987 when the Tribunal settled the issues in the presence of the parties as well as their learned counsel. Then, during the trial of this election petition i.e. when evidence was being recorded, no application or request was made to add another issue to cover this ground. This conduct of the petitioner shows that this ground was not seriously being pressed on his behalf. It has to be appreciated that in a trial, where issues are settled, the parties lead their evidence and prosecute or defend the trial, as the case may be, in the light of the issues framed by the Court or Tribunal holding such trial.

12. In any case, I am not inclined to hold that it has been proved that a false affidavit has been filed by the respondent in support of his nomination papers. No doubt, in his evidence, the respondent has himself admitted that certain particulars and information given by him in his nomination form were incorrect but he has given some explanations e.g. oversight, mistake and passage of time, for such incorrect particulars and information. Then as regards the allegation about involvement in criminal cases, it may be pointed out that in column 14 of the nomination form, the words "involved in a criminal case" have not been used. The exact words in column 14 are reproduced h ere: ‑‑

13. "Have you ever been indicted in a criminal proceeding or convicted for the violation of any law (except minor traffic violations)?"

14. It has not been proved through evidence that the respondent was ever convicted for violation of any law. Then it has also not been established that the respondent had been "indicted" in any criminal proceedings. In his cross‑examination, the respondent, in answer to a specific question on this point (at page 34 of his cross‑examination at page 523 of the evidence file) deposed as follows;‑‑

15. "I have never been indicted of any criminal charge but I read in the newspaper once that I was involved on account of political reasons in some case. I was never called upon by the police to make a statement. I never appeared in the Court in that case but I got bail before arrest through Mr. M. Anwar, advocate. The case never went to Court."

16. This evidence, averred to be an admission on the part of the respondent, does not prove that he was indicted in a criminal proceeding.

6. Issue No. 3 is now taken up. It relates to sub‑clause (7‑c) of clause (b) of sub‑Article (2) of Article 10 of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977, which provision is reproduced here:‑‑

17. "10(1)

(2) A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of parliament‑‑

(b) IF--

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

18. (7‑c) he has, during the period of two months preceding the publication of Notification under section 11 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (LXXXV of 1976), been a member or supporter of, or associated with, a political party unless he is put up by that political party as a candidate; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19. It has been admitted by the respondent in his evidence that he has been a supported of Pakistan Muslim League and he was their official candidate. Relevant part of his deposition (page 38 of his cross‑examination at page 531 of the evidence file) is as under:‑‑

20. "Question:‑‑Were you an official candidate of Pakistan Muslim League for the election in dispute?

21. Answer:‑‑I was.

22. I have been supporter of Muslim League since 1940. Pakistan Muslim League has always been there whether it has been in power or not and I have been supporter of Pakistan

23. Muslim League including the present Muslim League."

24. Mr. Shahid Hamid, learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to certain dates and these are:‑

25. 27‑12‑1986 ‑‑ Last date of filing nomination papers.

26. 29‑12‑1986 ‑‑ Date of scrutiny of nomination papers.

27. 5‑1‑1987‑‑ Last date for withdrawal of nomination papers.

28. 7‑1‑1987‑‑ Poll held.

29. It was then submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent, admittedly a supporter of a political party, had been declared as the official nominee of the Pakistan Muslim League on 5‑1‑1987 and not earlier. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that as the respondent was admittedly a supporter of the Pakistan Muslim League, a political party, he should have been put up by the Pakistan Muslim League or declared as their candidate on or before the last date of filing the nomination papers which was 27‑12‑1986 whereas it is admitted that he was declared as the official candidate of the Pakistan Muslim League on 5‑1‑1987 and as such the respondent comes within the mischief of Article 10(2)(b)(7‑c) of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977. In support of this contention, Mr. Shahid Hamid referred to the definition of "candidate" in section 2(1)(b) of the Senate (Election) Act, 1975 where it is defined as meaning "a person proposed as a candidate for election as a member". It was also pointed out that the term "candidate" is different from the term "contesting candidate" defined as meaning a candidate who has been validly nominated for election as a member and has not withdrawn his candidature by section 2(1)(d), and from the term "member" defined as meaning member of the Senate by section 2(1)(b) of the Senate (Election) Act, 1975. It was emphasised by learned counsel for the petitioner that in Article 10(2)(b)(7‑c) of P.O. 5 of 1977, the relevant words are that "unless he is put up by that political party as a candidate".

30. Mr. Saqib Nisar, learned counsel for the respondent, replying to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner on issue No. 3, submitted that the plea on behalf of the petitioner in this context is inconsistent with the averments made by the petitioner in his memo of petition as well as his affidavit and this plea has also not been raised in the memo of the petition and as such issue No. 3 is liable to be struck off. Submission of Mr. Saqib Nisar that this plea has not been raised in the memo. of the petition is correct. It is also correct that in his memo of petition and also in his affidavit, the petitioner has taken the plea that the respondent first solicited and then campaigned for and received votes as the official candidate of the ruling Muslim League Party which was contrary to law (para. 6(c) of the memo. of petition). Reference can also be made to para. 4 of the memo of petition where reference has been made about the grant of the Muslim League Party ticket to any candidate and Mr. Ghulam Haider Wyne, described in the memo of the petition as a Provincial Minister and Secretary‑General of the Punjab Muslim League, obtaining withdrawal letters from all the candidates except the petitioner. Then it is averred:‑‑

31. "The only exception was the petitioner who informed Mr. Ghulam Haider Wyne that the proposed grant of the Muslim League Party ticket would be a violation of the law because political parties were precluded from putting up candidates for any election to a House of Parliament."

32. The plea raised during the arguments on issue No.3 is contradictory to the plea raised in the memo of the petition and in his affidavit by the petitioner. In any case the plea that the respondent had not been put up by Pakistan Muslim League as their candidate on or before the last date of filing of nomination papers has not been raised, directly or even indirectly in the memo of his petition by the petitioner. Issue No. 3 was, therefore, wrongly framed and is liable to be struck off.

33. Mr. Saqib Nisar, learned counsel for the petitioner, is also correct in his submission that decision of issue No. 3 necessarily requires a finding on facts i.e. whether the respondent had been put up as a candidate on or before the last date of filing nominations or after that date. As a factual finding was necessary, petitioner should have specifically made averments in this context so that in' the written statement the respondent would have had the opportunity to deny such averments and lead evidence in that behalf. It was submitted by Mr. Saqib Nisar, that in case a specific plea on facts had been taken by the petitioner in his memo. of petition, respondent would have produced witnesses on his behalf to establish that all the nine candidates (excluding the petitioner) were put up by the Pakistan Muslim League which is also evident from the fact that the other eight candidates had withdrawn their candidature at the asking of the Pakistan Muslim League, and as no such factual plea had been raised by the petitioner, respondent will be prejudiced in case this Tribunal decides to give a factual finding required for deciding issue No. 3. I agree with this submission of Mr. Saqib Nisar.

34. Even otherwise, it may be observed, the petitioner has not been able to establish that the respondent had been "put up" as a candidate on 5‑1‑1987 and not earlier. The contention of Mr. Shahid Hamid, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the words "put up" are synonymous with issuance of a party ticket cannot be accepted. The law relating to Senate elections does not require issuance of a party ticket or letter to the effect that a particular candidate has been put up by that political party. Section 11 of the Senate (Election) Act, 1975 relates to nomination for election and it reads as follows:‑‑

35. "11. Nomination for election.‑‑(1) A voter from a Province may propose or second the name of any person qualified for election to the Senate from that Province.

(2) Every proposal shall be made by a separate nomination paper in the prescribed form which shall be signed by the proposer and the seconder and contain a declaration signed by the candidate that he consents to the nomination and that he is not subject to any disqualification for being or being elected as a member.

(3) Every nomination paper shall be delivered by the candidate, or his proposer or seconder, to the Returning Officer who shall acknowledge receipt thereof.

(4) A person may be nominated by more than one nomination papers.

(5) Every proposal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the relevant extract from the electoral roll in which the name of the person nominated is enrolled."

36. Rule 3 of the Senate (Election) Rules 1975 provides that the nomination paper shall be in Form I, and Form I appears at pages 266‑272 of the Manual of Election Laws (1986 Edition) published by the Election Commission of Pakistan. Then Exh. 5 and Exh. 5/1 are copies of the nomination forms filed by the petitioner and the respondent respectively. The prescribed form of the nomination paper for Senate elections does not require the nomination form to be endorsed by the political party who might have put up a candidate for the I Senate Elections. Even the Representation of the People Act, 1976 does= not require that in case a candidate has been put up by a political party, a formal party ticket or letter is to be issued to that effect (section 12). The prescribed form of nomination paper under the Act of 1976 (page 123 of the Manual of Election Laws 1986 Edition) also does not require issuance of party ticket or letter by the concerned political party.

37. Reliance by Mr. Shahid Hamid, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the definition of "candidate" in section 2(1)(b) of the Senate (Election) Act 1975 is of no help to the petitioner as in my view the words "proposed as a candidate" in section 2(1)(b) has reference to section 11 of the Senate (Election) Act, 1975 which inter alla provides that a voter from a Province may propose or second the name of any person qualified for election to the Senate from that Province. There is no requirement that the proposer is to be the political party in case the candidate has been put up by it.

38. The case of the petitioner on issue No. 3 is built up on the assumption that as a decision had been taken by the Pakistan Muslim League on 5‑1‑1987 that the respondent was to be the official candidate of the party, the respondent had been put up on 5‑1‑1987 as the candidate and not earlier. But an equally compatible assumption on the evidence on record could be that all the nine candidates (except the petitioner) had been put up by the Muslim League as all the nine had handed over their letters of withdrawal to the Secretary‑Genera of the Punjab Muslim League with the authority to submit 8 out of the 9 withdrawal letters to the Election Authority keeping only on candidate of the Party in the field. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner had not been able to establish that the respondent had been put up as their candidate by the Muslim League on 5‑1‑1987 and not earlier.

39. It is not considered necessary to deal with two other points raised by Mr. Saqib Nisar, learned counsel for the respondent, that Article 10(2)(b)(7‑c) of P.O. Order 5 of 1977 only applies to elections to the National and Provincial Assemblies and not to Senate elections and that this bye‑election has been held under the Senate (Election) Act, 1975 and not under the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977.

40. My finding is that issue No. 3 does not arise out of the pleadings of the parties and as such it is liable to be struck off and in any case the petitioner has not been able to establish that the petitioner was disqualified under Article 10(2)(b)(7‑c) of the Housesl of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977.

7. The main issue in this election petition is issue No. 1 which is as follows:‑‑

41. "Whether the respondent is neither a 'technocrat' nor a 'professional' as defined in the Explanation given in Article 5 of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order No. 5 of 1977?"

42. Major part of the evidence recorded in this petition and most of the time consumed during the arguments by the learned counsel for the parties related to this issue. The bye‑election was held on 7‑1‑1987 for filling up a casual vacancy in the Senate of Pakistan against five seats reserved for "ulema, technocrats and other professionals" from the Province of Punjab. Respondent's case has been that he is an expert in the field of journalism and had filed his nomination paper (Ex.5/1) claiming to be technocrat as well as a professional.

43. I propose to deal first with the question whether it has been proved that the respondent is not a "professional". In the Explanation in Article 5 of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977, the term professional has been defined to mean‑‑"a person of distinction with nationally or internationally recognized professional qualifications and practical experience at a high level in a specialized area of knowledge who has been practising in his specialization by adopting it as his principal calling, vocation or employment."

44. This definition of "professional" prescribes four requirements to be possessed by a person claiming to be a "professional" and these are:

(a) he must be a person of distinction;

(b) he must possess nationally or internationally recognized I professional qualifications;

(c) he must have practical experience at a high level in a specialised area of knowledge; and

(d) he has been practising in his specialized field as his principel calling, vocation or employment.

45. Mr. Shahid Hamid, learned counsel for the petitioner, had argued that none of the four requirements are fulfilled by the respondent whereas according to Mr. ‑Saqib Nisar the respondent fulfils all such requirements.

46. The first requirement of "distinction" is taken up first. Reference had been made to several dictionaries both by Mr. Shahid Hamid as well as by Mr. Saqib Nisar for explaining the meaning of "distinction". This word has been given, inter alia, the following meanings in the recognized dictionaries:‑‑eminence; noticeable eminence; eminence achieved in a profession; special honour; recognition; fame; repute; mark of honour; distinguished character; excellence.

47. In my view "a person of distinction" does not refer to an above average person or even a person who can be described as "good" or "very good" in his field. When reference is made to an individual as a person of distinction, it connotes a person of eminence or excellence in his field; an individual of exceptional qualities and attainments placing him much above the above‑average. The good and the very good; a person who has been honoured or recognized by his community or country or internationally for achievements in any field; a person who is among the top people in his profession. To name a few individuals, who can be described as men of distinction without any reservations, one can mention Quaid‑e‑Azam in the field of politics; Allama Iqbal as a poet and philosopher; Late Mr. Manzoo Qadir, Mr. A . K . Brohi and Mr. Mahmud Ali Qasuri and several others in the legal profession; Imran Khan and Jehangir Khan in the field of Sports. Then there are and can be many others who have attained or achieved eminence or excellence in their special fields.

48. The respondent has claimed that he is a person of distinction on the basis of the following attainments or achievements:‑‑

(i) He organized the Pakistan‑China Friendship Association Lahore in 1957 of which Association he has remained the President for a number of years.

(ii) He succeeded in persuading the Lahore Municipal Corporation in getting the crossing of Race Course Road and Lawrence Road in Lahore named as "China Chowk".

(iii) He is the only Pakistani who has so. far made a speech from Radio Beijing, China.

(iv) He has written three books which have been selected by the U.S. Congress Library.

49. Mr. Shahid Hamid is correct in submitting that the above achievements or attainments do not qualify the respondent to be described as a man of distinction according to the definition of "professional". It has to be observed here that "distinction" has to be acquired in the field in which the candidate claims to be and expert or in any case there must be a nexus with the specialized field. Mr. Saqib Nisar, learned counsel for the respondent, had argued r that according to the definition of "professional", the candidate can be a "man of distinction" in one field and his specialization may in another field. Interpreting the delinition of "professional" as a whole, it would follow that the intent of the Legislature is that the "distinction" has a nexus with the specialized field of the candidate.

50. I have not‑ been able to accept the interpretation sought to be placed by Mr. Saqib Nisar on this provision that the candidate may have acquired "distinction" in a different or non‑allied field than the specialized field of the candidate.

51. Organization of Pak‑China Friendship Association, making a speech on Radio Beijing as the first Pakistani and getting the Race Course Road and Lawrence Road Crossing renamed as China Chowk are neither achievements which make the respondent a man of distinction nor these achievements have a direct or indirect nexus with the field of the respondent i.e. journalism.

52. Reference may also be made to the three books written by the respondent. "Jahan Numa" (Exh. 7/4) and "Road to Teheran" (Exh.7/5) are travel books or travelogues, and "Pakistan's Long Autumn" (Exh. 7/5) is a collection of 42 articles and letters written by the respondent for newspapers. Except for averring that these three books have been selected by U.S. Congress Library, nothing has been placed on record to show that the three books have been granted any recognition by any forum, institution, Government or body, national or international as works of distinction. Purchase of these three books by officials. of ‑U.S. Consulate for U.S. Congress Library without any cogent material on record as to what is the criteria for purchase of books by or on behalf of U.S. Congress Library, does not make the respondent a "man of distinction".

53. It may be observed here that the respondent has never been the `president or office‑bearer of any local, national or internationa body of journalists or editors. In fact it was admitted by him that he never became a member of anybody or association of journalists oreditors.

54. I am, therefore, of the view that the pleadings and the evidence brought on record do not establish that the respondent is a "man of distinction". The first condition of the definition of "professional" is not fulfilled by the respondent.

55. The second requirement of the definition of "professional" is about holding nationally or internationally recognized professional qualifications. The respondent claims to have passed the Diploma examination in Journalism from the Punjab University in 1944. It is an admitted position that in 1943‑44, in Punjab University, the only course in Journalism that was available was the Diploma in Journalism after one year's study and passing of the examination. About the Syllabus and courses of study of the Diploma in Journalism, the respondent deposed as follows (page 11 of his cross‑examination at page 477 of the evidence file):‑‑

56. "There were two papers for Diploma examination in Journalism and these were theory of Journalism and Practical Journalism. In theory of Journalism, they were teaching us the technices, principles and ethics of journalism. For practical Journalism, we were supposed to go to some newspaper office and translate some part of the newspaper from English to Urdu or Urdu to English and then make a news item with heading, captions, dividing it in paragraphs etc. Although there was no prescribed syllabus but we were asked by Mr. P.P. Singh who was the Lecturer and Head of Department of Journalism when I was student to study plenty of general knowledge, a bit of International law, also the Constitutional development in India from 1857 onwards upto date and also the democratic system in England at the turn of the century and also rudimentary Economics and Geography. We were told that Journalism must know something of everything and only then one would become a Journalist. A good command of the language is also emphasised."

57. From the above evidence and the admitted position that in 1943‑44 Diploma in Journalism was the only qualification that could be acquired from Punjab University, one of the top Universities of the Sub‑Continent, a person holding such diploma can be described as possessing nationally recognized professional qualification in Journalism.

58. But the petitioner had challenged the diploma (Exh. 18/1) as a forged document. The original diploma has been produced (Exh. 18/1) by the respondent. On its face it appears to be genuine document. Then there are two other documents which confirm that the respondent appeared in the Diploma in Journalism examination held by Punjab University in 1944 and these are the admission forms submitted by the respondent for appearing in the diploma examination of 1944 (Exh. 9/8) and the result Notification of Punjab University dated 26‑7‑1944 (Exh.9/4) giving the names of candidates who had passed the said diploma examination with marks obtained by each student. Exh. 9/4 shows that respondent had passed the examination. These two documents (Exhs. 9/3 and 9/4) have also been challenge as forgeries. The burden of establishing that the three document were forgeries, out of which two documents (Exhs. 9/3 and 9/4) had been produced by University officials, was very heavy on the petitioner and I am of the view that such burden had not been discharged. In this context a relevant part of the cross‑examination of the petitioner is reproduced here (pages 36‑39) of his cross‑examination at pages 325 ‑ 331 of the evidence file)‑‑

59. "Q.‑ What precise University record according to you has been created by the respondent for purpose of this case?

60. A.‑ The original diploma relied upon by the respondent, the result notification (Exh. 9/4) and admission form (Exh. 9/3).

61. Q.‑ According to you why are the people in the University who are involved in the preparation of the aforesaid three documents?

62. A.‑ I will take the Diploma first. According to me the paper on which the relevant entries have been made relating to the respondent is genuine and apparently has been purchased from the market having earlier been purloined from the University record. However, the signatures of the Registrar and the Vice‑Chancellor are forged but I cannot say who has done this. But the respondent is definitely involved not only in the purchase of the blank Diploma form from the market and also in the affixation of the signatures of the Registrar and the stamp of the then Vice‑Chancellor. As for his admission form (Exh. 9/3) is concerned, according to me, of course respondent must be involved alongwith Abdullah and the Controller. I may add that the Controller was involved in the case of Dr. Abdul Khalik. The pressure must have been put by the Pro‑Vice‑Chancellor upon the concerned University officers for preparation of the secondary record. The original of Exh. 9/3, apart from the writings and the signatures and the stamp, appears to be a genuine document but entries apparently have been made unlawfully particularly the one concerning the roll number. The entries in Ex. 9/4 have been unlawfuly made apparently with the connivance of the same persons whose names I have mentioned in connection with the preparation of the admission form of the respondent.

63. Q.‑ Are you challenging the authenticity of only the admission form of the respondent or also of other admission forms of the same register including the note on the first page?

64. A.‑ I am only challenging the authenticity of the admission form of the respondent copy whereof has been filed as Ex.9/3. Other forms and the documents containing original of Ex.9/3 appear to be genuine.

65. I did not seek the help or assistance of an expert in order to check the authenticity of the writings on the original of Ex.9/3.

66. Q.‑ Is it your case that the respondent did not appear in 1944 Journalism Diploma examination of the Punjab University or he had appeared but failed and then secondary evidence was created to show that he had passed the examination?

67. A.‑ It is our case that he did not appear in the examination. He might have been the student at that time but according to us he did not appear in the examination in Diploma in Journalism in 1944.

68. Q.‑ According to you which of the three documents was prepared first?

69. A.‑ Apparently the Diploma was created first thinking that this would be sufficient but when apparently respondent got the information that I and my friends were making serious inquiries, other documents had to be created to support the Diploma.

70. According to me, therefore, after the Diploma had been prepared, first the result Notification was unlawfully prepared and then the admission form. No criminal information leas been laid before any authority nor any F.I.R. ‑has been lodged by me."

71. This evidence only shows suspicions or doubts of the petitioner. There is no proof of forgery.

72. Reliance had been placed on behalf of the petitioner upon entries made in the relevant Students' Register about the academic record of the respondent and the initial confirmation made by the Assistant Controller of Examinations of the Punjab University on the letter dated 15‑1‑1987 of the petitioner addressed to the Controller of Examinations (Ex.10/1). In the relevant Students' Register, where entries regarding the respondent are made, there is no entry about respondent passing the Journalism Diploma examination. But evidence has come on record through Ex.9 Sarwar Hussain, Deputy Registrar of the University, that where result‑sheets are not received from the examination branch by the section of the University who maintains the Students' Registers, obviously entries about such examination will not find mention in the Students' Register and it has been seen that in case of several other students also some entries about passing some of their examinations were not found in the Students' Register. Mere absence of entry in the Students' Register about the respondent passing the Journalism Diploma Examination does not establish or prove that the Diploma of the respondent is a forgery. As observed earlier, apart from the evidence of the respondent to the effect that h attended one year's classes, then appeared in the examination an obtained the Diploma in Journalism in 1944 after passing such examination, there are three documents which prove that the respondent had passed the Diploma examination. These are the Diploma Certificate itself (Exh. 18/ 1) , which appears to be a genuine document and the signatures on this document apparently tally with admitted signatures on other documents of the then Registrar and Vice Chancellor of the Punjab University. Then there are the admission form of the petitioner (Exh. 9/3) and the result notification (Exh_ 9/4) produced by the Deputy Registrar of the Punjab University. A observed earlier, in view of the state of the‑ evidence on record, i is apparent that the petitioner has not been able to discharge his burden that the Diploma of the respondent is a forged document.

73. My finding is that the respondent possessed nationally recognized professional qualifications in Journalism.

74. The third requirement is practical experience at a high level in the specialized area of knowledge. From the evidence on record it is apparent that the respondent has practical experience in the field of journalism. He has worked as a reporter or correspondent in Associated Press of India (A . P. I .) before partition and also had several years' practical experience in A.P.P. after partition. Then he was co‑editor of weekly "Iqdam" from 1952‑1964. It may be observed here that in the definition of "professional" there is no requirement of any minimum period of practical experience as against 15 years' requirement of experience and expertise for a "technocrat". The only point which requires some consideration is whether the respondent has practical experience at a high level. Mr. Shahid Hamid had submitted that the "high level" is above average and, therefore, implies that there are two other levels i.e. intermediate and low level. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, there are three categories of Journalists and these are:‑‑

75. G) Low level comprising reporters and correspondents.

(ii) Intermediate level includes the Chief Reporters, Sub‑editors and Editors.

(iii) High level comprises Chief Editors, managing editors, editors‑in‑chief , publishers and managing directors.

76. Reference was made to Encyclopaedia Britanica, 1950 Edition, Volume 13 at page 157.

77. On the other hand Mr. Saqib Nisar, learned counsel for the respondent, had submitted that the reporters belong to the low level; Chief reporters, correspondents, special correspondents and sub‑editors are at the high level and editors and chief editors are at the highest level.

78. There can be no doubt about the status of the reporters. They are in the low or lowest category of Journalists. There can an intermediate category of Journalists but to place editors in such category would be downgrading them. Perhaps sub‑editors an correspondents come in the intermediate category. Then comes the category of editors and they must be placed in the high level. Finally there is the highest level of journalists and that category would include chief‑editors.

79. The respondent has remained a co‑editor of weekly "Iqdam" for several years i.e. he has practical experience in the field journalism at a high level.

80. The fourth and last requirement of a "professional" is that he must have been practising in his specialization by adopting it as his principal calling, vocation or employment. Both Mr. Shahid Hamid and Mr. Saqib Nisar had referred to the meaning of the terms calling, vocation and employment in various dictionaries. I do not consider it necessary to make reference to such dictionaries for the purpose of ascertaining the meaning of these terms as I am of the view that in case it has been established on record that the respondent had been a practising journalist and had adopted it as his profession, this requirement of the definition of "professional" is satisfied.

81. From the evidence it is apparent that since becoming a reporter some time in 1944 or thereafter, the respondent has been closely associated with journalism. He was a correspondent or reporter of A.P.I. prior to partition. After Partition he has worked with A.P.P. The respondent had also claimed that he was a reporter of Reuter's news agency in 1945 and had also remained their War correspondent on the Kashmir Front but the evidence in this regard is not very convincing. Then, from 1952 to 1964, he was the co‑editor of weekly "Iqdam" Lahore with Mian Muhammad Shafi popularly known as "Meem Sheen". He has also claimed that since 1978 he has been a member of the Editorial Board of monthly "Concept". He had claimed that in April 1953 he was a member of Pakistan's first Journalists' Delegation to Europe which was led by late Mr. Altaf Hussain, Editor of Dawn. He has also claimed that he was special correspondent of daily Ettelaat of Teheran and Iraq Times Baghdad, from 1950 to 1952. Then he has been writing articles which have been published from time to time in various Urdu news dailies of Pakistan. There was some controversy as to the number of articles written by the respondent on an average in an year which were published in Urdu dailies in Pakistan but this much is admitted that at least 10 articles per year were contributed by the‑respondent for Urdu dailies of Pakistan.

82. From the evidence it follows that journalism has been the profession of the respondent for a great number of years. The main challenge by Mr. Shahid Hamid on behalf of the petitioner was, however, on the point that the respondent had not been earning enough from the profession of journalism to sustain himself. It has also come on record that the respondent owns considerable agriculatural lands from which lands he was receiving substantial income. In the circumstances it was suggested on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent's principal calling, vocation or employment has been agriculture, which was his main source of income and not journalish which hardly gave him any financial support I do not find any meri in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard in the facts of this case. As observed earlier, most of the time the respondent has been spent or consumed in the field of journalism or in the allied fields. No doubt he had been receiving substantia income from his agricultural lands but by this it would not follow that agriculture is the principal calling, vocation or employment o S the respondent. Since 1944, the respondent has remained in the field of journalism. Most of his time has been spent in the pursuit of this calling, vocation or employment Journalism is the specialized field the respondent and, therefore, it can be said that the re‑3ponden has been practising in this field of specialization by adopting it as his principal calling, vocation or employment.

83. The respondent, in my view, therefore, fulfils three of the four requirements of "professional" but, as he is not a "man o distinction", he is not a "professional" as defined in the Explanation in Article 5 of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblie, (Elections) Order 5 of 1977.

8. The respondent had also filed his nomination paper for the special seat claiming to be a "technocrat". In the Explanation in Article 5 of the President's Order 5 of 1977, the term "technocrat" had been defined to mean‑

84. "A person of nationally or internationally recognized professional competence with at least 15 years' experience and expertise at a high level for administering or managing an operational or policy‑making unit."

85. On the interpretation of the term "technocrat" in Article 5 of President's Order 5 of 1977, there have been‑ two judgments of this Tribunal and these are:‑

(i) Waseem Sajjad v. Ihsanul Haq Paracha and Col. Ret. Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shah N L R 1985 Civil 637.

(ii) Dr. Aon Muhammad Khan v. Ihsanul Haq Paracha and others PLD 1986 Journal 48.

86. The aforesaid two decisions of this Tribunal were taken in appeal to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court decision in these two cases are:

(iii) Ihsanual Haq Piracha v. Waseem Sajjad P L D 1986 S C 200.

(tv) Dr. Aon Muhammad Khan v. Saeed Qadir P L D 1987 S C 490.

87. The definition of "technocrat" lays down three ingredients:‑

(a) the candidate must possess nationally or internationally recognized professional competence;

(b) the candidate must have experience and expertise of 15 years for administering or managing an operational or policy‑making unit; and

(c) such experience and expertise should be at a high level.

88. It has already been found in the discussion relating to the definition of "professional" that the respondent is the holder of a Diploma in Journalism from Punjab University which was awarded to him in 1944 after he had passed the Diploma Examination on completion of one wear's course and that this Diploma in Journalism is recognized nationally. The respondent being a holder of such Diploma and having experience in the field of Journalism as detailed in the earlier part of this judgment, in my view possesses nationally recognised professional competence in the field of Journalism. The second requirement is about 15 years' experience and expertise for administering or managing an operational or policy‑making unit. It has been proved by evidence that after partition the respondent was incharge of the Lahore office of Associated Press of Pakistan. This experience of the respondent was from 1947 to 1952 with a break about one year when he was in Teheran and Baghdad as Assistant Press Attache. The experience of the respondent as incharge of Lahore office of APP, therefore, comes to four years. Then from 1952 to 1964, for a period of 12 years, the respondent was a co‑editor alongwith Mian Muhammad Shaft (Meem Sheen) of weekly "Iqdam". Weekly "Iqdam" was being printed at Pakistan Printing Works. This printing press was an evacuee property and prior to partition it was known as Kapoor Art Press. After partition, this press was transferred jointly to the respondent and Mian Muhammad Shafi and was renamed as Pakistan Printing Works. According to the evidence of the respondent, respondent and Mian Muhammd Shafi had entered into a partnership for taking out 'Iqdam" and copy of the certificate of the registration of the partnership under the name and style of "The Organisers" with effect from 1‑1‑1952 has been produced as Exh.22/1. Permanent Transfer Deed dated 24‑6‑1965 of Kapoor Art Press in favour of the respondent and Mian Muhammad Shafi has been produced as Ex.18/46. It has also been stated in his evidence by the respondent that apart from printing "Iqdam" in this press, the respondent and Muhammad Shafi were also printing books for Punjab Textbook Board and other organizations.

89. As regards APP, in respect of which Organisation at Lahore, the respondent has had four years of experience, the respondent had claimed that he was either the managing editor or manager of the Lahore office of APP. This claim was vehemently challenged in his cross‑examination. However, as observed earlier, the fact that respondent was incharge of the Lahore office of the APP after Partition and remained so for about a period of four years has been established by evidence.

90. Having about three years experience as a report correspondent of A.P.I. prior to Partition and holding the diploma in Journalism from Punjab University, the only professional degree diploma available at that time in the Punjab University, a major University of the sub‑continent, it can be said that the respondent acquired expertise in the field of journalism when he was appointed as incharge of the Lahore office of A.P.P. Four years as incharge o the Lahore office of APP and 12 years as co‑editor of weekly "Iqdam" and co‑owner of the Printing Press gives the respondent over 15 years of experience and expertise for administering or managing these units. The next question which arises here is whether the Lahore office of APP and weekly "Iqdam" and the printing press can be recognized or termed as operational or policy‑making units. There can be no doubt that a running printing press is an operational unit and the organisation of editing, printing and publishing a weekly magazine can also be described as an operational or policy‑making unit. The Lahore office of the A . P . P . immediately after Partition also falls within the meaning of an operational unit as well as policy‑making unit, With the operations being carried out in the office of A.P.P., it can be described as an operational unit. It would also be a policy‑making unit where policy decisions must have been taken about collection, importance and dissemination of news from Pakistan as well as abroad.

91. I may refer here to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Waseem Sajjad v. Ihsanul Haq Paracha (N L R 1985 Civil 637) where, while considering the meaning of such units, it was observed that the policy‑making unit or operational unit need not be a big or large organisation as the law does not require it to be so and it can be any medium or small sized unit also and what is required is that it must be a policy‑making unit i.e. where policy decisions are taken or an operational unit, for example, any factory, manufacturing or assembling unit. The view of this Tribunal that the policy‑making or operational unit may not be a large unit has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The respondent, therefore, also fulfils the second requirement.

92. The final requirement of the definition of "technocrat" is that such experience and expertise of administering or managing an operational or policy‑making units must be at a high level. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Waseem Sajjad v. Ihsanul Haq Paracha where, dealing with the term "high level", it was observed as follows:‑

93. "In my view 'high level' has reference to experience and expertise and not to operational or policy‑making unit. The words used are that the candidate must have 15 years' experience and expertise at a high level, and not that he must have 15 years' experience and expertise of administering or managing a high level unit. The policy‑making Unit or operational unit need not be a big or large organization as the law does not require it to be so. It can be any medium or small sized unit also. What is required is that it must be a policy‑making unit i.e. Where policy decisions are taken, or an operational unit for example any factory, manufacturing or assembling unit.

94. But the experience and expertise must be at a high level for administering or managing any such unit. A mere foreman or supervisor in a factory would not apparently satisfy this condition. Experience and expertise as Manager or General Manager incharge of a factory would apparently satisfy the condition. As regards the policy‑making unit, if it is company, the managing director or chief executive or even a full time working director would be a person at a high level administering or managing the unit. In the case of a partnership firm, the managing partner and all full time working partners and in case of a proprietary concern, the proprietor, would be person at high level administering or managing a policy‑making unit. I have not accepted the contention of the petitioner and Mr. Shahid Hamid that only heads of ministries, statutory corporations, Pakistan Banking Council and huge complexes come within such definitions. The contention that even managing director of a policy‑making or operational company is excluded as he is subject to the supervision of the Board of Directors has not appealed to me. A managing director even though subject to supervision by Board of Directors, of a policy‑making or operational unit is in my view a person at a high level administering or managing such unit."

95. I have already held that the position of an editor is a position held at a high level. I may add here that when the respondent was holding charge of the Lahore office of APP, this charge would be W charge at high level. Being incharge of the entire office of Lahore APP cannot be described as a charge at a low level. In my view, therefore, this condition is also satisfied by the respondent.

96. On issue No.l, my finding is that the respondent is not "professional" as defined in the Explanation given in Article l of the X Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order 5 o 1977, but he fulfils the requirements contained in the definition o "technocrat" in the said Article.

9. In view of my finding on issue No.l, issue No.4 is decided in the negative and issue No.5 has become redundant.

10. Election petition No.l of 1987 (Senate) is, in the circumstances dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs.

97. A.A. /F‑20/ E Election petition dismissed.