SHAH JAHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA

1. MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN, J.--- In the following writ petitions, the petitioners have urged identical point, therefore, we intend to dispose of these petitions, by way of this common judgment.

2. W.P. No.250-D of 2014

3. (Shah Jehan and 2 others v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary, Education Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Peshawar and others)

4. W.P. No. 275-D of 2014

5. (Muhammad Tanveer v. Director Elementary and Secondary Education Dabgari Gate Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others)

6. W.P. No. 283-D of 2014

7. (Muhammad Alamzeb and 16 others v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary, Elementary and Secondary Education, Peshawar and others)

8. W.P. No.287-D of 2014

9. (Muhammad Owais and another v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education, Peshawar and others)

10. W.P. No.288-D of 2014

11. (Muhammad Rafiq v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education, Peshawar and others)

12. W.P. No.300-D of 2014

13. (Jawairia Bashir v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Peshawar through Secretary Education and others)

14. W.P. No.309-D of 2014

15. (Sadia Zahoor v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education, Peshawar and others)

16. W.P. No.344-D of 2014

17. (Muhammad Arshad Naveed v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education Department, Peshawar and others)

18. W.P. No.351-D of 2014

19. (Irfan Ullah v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education, Peshawar and others)

20. W.P. No.395-D of 2014

21. (Laila Khan v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education, Peshawar and others)

22. PRAYER: "On acceptance/issuance of the instant writ petition and by directing the respondents to consider the petitioners for appointment being eligible candidates for the appointment as Drawing Masters for petitioner No.1, petitioner No.2 for Primary School Teacher and Drawing Master and petitioner No.3 for Health and Physical Education Teacher while respondents are reluctant not to consider the petitioners only on the grounds that the petitioners are having that qualifications, diplomas from Skill Development Council Lahore Punjab which is the violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners with further prayer that the writ of the petitioners may please be disposed of in the light of judgment already delivered by the Honourable Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 11.9.2013 vide W.P. No.3032-P/2012 wherein the multiple writ petitions were decided by the said Bench in shape of single judgment and the respondents were directed to consider the applications of the petitioners of writ referred above by declaring the diplomas issued by the Skill Development Council, Lahore, Punjab, as the valid are and furthermore the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore, has also decided the same nature case vide W.P. No.16844/2010 on 23-4-2012 by declaring the diplomas issued by Skill Development Council, Lahore, Punjab, as the valid one.

2. The concerned respondent submitted para-wise comments. Para-C of the comments is reproduced as under;--

23. "The National Training Ordinance, 1980 is introduced to constitute training boards to regulate and promote vocational training facilities in various fields. Teachers training courses are not vocational training courses. The Council is established under Ordinance, 1980 but does not mean that council has authority to issue certificates to private colleges/institutions as held in 2012 PLC (C.S.) 752. The petitioners have diplomas/certificates from unrecognized institutions."

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the available record.

4. The petitioners have got their D.M.P.S.T. and P.E.T. certificate from Skill Development Council. They were duly considered and appeared in test/interview but subsequently dropped from the merit list being ineligible. The question whether the Skill Development Council is competent to grant such professional certificates, initially answered by this Court in a number of judgments in affirmative; Those judgments were challenged before apex Court. The apex Court vide consolidated judgment in case titled "DCO/Chairman District Recruitment Committee Khanewal and others v. Kishwar Sultana and others", held that

24. "The Skill Development Council as the very name suggests focuses on labour, market, information and launches technical education and vocational training in any physical and professional skill, trade, calling or occupation so that the people who cannot acquire higher or specialized education may get opportunities of employment, according to the needs and requirements of the market. Art, craft, education and physical education are well beyond the domain of the Council and capacity of its faculty. It thus, could not launch prgrammes in any of these fields. The Board and the Council traveled beyond what they were established for by launching programmes falling exclusively in the domain of art, craft, education or physical education. The letter reproduced above also clearly demarcated the domain of the Board and the Council. In spite of that the Council issued certificates and diplomas in such fields, even in respect of the courses of one year duration. Another amazing and intriguing fact is that appointments have been made on the basis of such diplomas and certificates in the educational institutions without caring to know that the Council does not have the power and competence to launch such programmes, courses and curriculums and issue certificates and diplomas in this behalf. The education being a specialized field having many dimensions in today's context could not thus be left to the faculty which did not have specialized qualification and training therefor."

5. The apex court has answered this question, therefore, the petitioners were ineligible at the time of advertisement and were rightly dropped for consideration of appointment.

6. In wake of the above discussion, all the above referred writ petitions, being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed.

25. ZC/210/P Petition dismissed.