Pakistan Case Law
2003 PLC (C.S.) 975

ABDUL LATIF and others vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2003 PLC (C.S.) 975
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No.7033 of 2002
Date2002-09-02
Judge(s)Farrukh Latif
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The petitioners approached the Lahore High Court through a constitutional petition seeking directions against the respondents for refusing to entertain their applications for the posts of S.S. Educators. The petitioners contended that they possessed M.A. Ed. and M.Ed. degrees which were declared equivalent to M.A. by the University Grants Commission and the Ministry of Education. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' professional degrees satisfied the academic qualification requirement of an M.A. or M.Sc. degree as stipulated in the job advertisement. The court held that the notifications relied upon by the petitioners only declared equivalence among professional degrees and did not equate professional degrees with academic degrees like M.A. or M.Sc. Since the petitioners lacked the mandatory academic master's degree, they were not qualified for the posts. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a professional qualification cannot substitute for a mandatory academic qualification unless expressly equated by competent authority.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether a professional degree can be treated as equivalent to an academic degree without an explicit notification to that effect?
  • Can a writ of mandamus be issued to compel authorities to consider candidates who lack the prescribed mandatory qualifications for a post?
  • Does a professional degree like M.Ed. or M.A. Ed. satisfy the requirement of an academic master's degree such as M.A. or M.Sc.?
writ petitioneducational qualificationequivalence of degreesS.S. Educatorsconstitutional jurisdiction

ORDER

Allegedly the petitioners are candidates for the posts of S.S. Educators advertised in the newspaper by respondent No.2, and possess the requisite qualification for the said post but their applications are not being entertained by the respondents on the ground that they are not qualified for the said post.

2. It is contended by their counsel that the respondents are not treating their degrees of M.A. Ed.

And M.Ed. Equivalent to M.A. In spite of the fact that those have been declared to the equivalent by the University Grants Commission and the Ministry of Education vide Notification Annex-C and C.1.

3. Grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of being qualified for the post applied for by them, they are not being interviewed and considered. Prayer in the writ petition is that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the petitioners qualification fit for the post and they be interviewed.

4. Petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Arguments heard; writ petition and its annexures perused.

5. According to para. 6 of the writ petition, the petitioners are candidates for the post of S.S. Educators. In advertisement Annex-A, qualification for the said post is M.A./M.Sc. And in addition thereto professional qualification like (M.Ed., M.A.Ed. M.S. Ed., B.S. Ed.) meaning thereby that the candidate should possess an academic degree i,e, M.A. Or M.Sc. And a professional degree as well which are mentioned above.

6. Annex-C and C.1, do not support the claim of the petitioners that degree of M.A. And M.Ed have been declared equivalent to M.A. Or M.Sc.

7. Notification C.1, does not speak of any Academic Degree like M.A. Or M.Sc. And it is in respect of only professional degrees viz M.A.Ed, M.Ed., M.Ed. Technical., M.A. Technical Education (Industrial Arts)., M.B.E., M.Ed. Tech (Business), M.S. Ed., M.Ed. (Science) and it is stated that all the aforesaid degrees are equivalent.

8. According to notification Annex-C, B.S. Ed., and M.S. Ed. And M.Ed., (Science) Degree, awarded by University of Punjab have been treated equivalent to B.Ed., M.Ed., and M.A. (Education), M.B.E. And M.A. Technical Education (Industrial Arts). This notification also does not say anything about any Academic Degrees like M.A. Or M.Sc. Or their equivalence with any Professional Degree.

9. The petitioners admittedly do not possess Degree of M.A. Or M.Sc. Petitioner No.3, possesses B.A.

Degree while the remaining petitioners possesses B.Sc. Degree. Although they do possess the requisite professional Degree viz M.A.Ed. But requirement for the post applied by them was also that of an Academic Degree of M.A., M.Sc. Which they admittedly do not possess; hence they cannot be deemed to possess the requisite qualification for the post applied for by them i,e, S.S. Educators, basic qualification for which was M.A. Or M.Sc. With Additional Qualification of a Professional Degree.

10. Direction in writ jurisdiction cannot be, therefore, issued to the respondents to consider the petitioners' qualification fit for the post they have applied for and to interview them.

' Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Cited by 5 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.