' The brief facts giving rise to the instant Constitutional petition are that the petitioners were duly appointed as PTC Teachers in BPS-7 in different schools run by Municipal Committee, Sahiwal. ,The Government of the Punjab vide memo. Dated 25-8-1983 (Annex. A) recommended the advance increments to the teachers, as under:--{{TABLE}}
(i) Teachers who possess or Two advance increments. Acquire F.A./F.Sc. {{TABLE}}
(ii) Teachers who (in addition to F.A./F.Sc.) also possess or acquire C.T.
Teachers who possess acquire a degree B.A./B.Sc. One additional advance increment. Or Three additional advance . Of increments. {{TABLE}}
2. Pursuant to the above, the petitioners were granted that advance increments as applicable to their respective cases. Subsequently, the Government of Punjab (Finance. Department) issued another Notification on 26-6-1990 (Annex. B) and allowed BS-9 to all the Primary School Teachers who hold the minimum qualification of F.A./F.Sc. (2nd Division) + existing prescribed professional training with one-third in selection grade BS-10. In compliance with this Notification, petitioners were awarded BS-9. After some time, the Government of the Punjab (Finance Department) issued a letter bearing No, FD.PR.12-3/87(PT-I), dated 20th March, 1991 clarifying that the officials who have passed the Intermediate Examination from Allama Iqbal Open University without English are not entitled to the advance increments. On the basis of it, respondent No,3 (Chairman, Municipal Committee, Sahiwal) started taking measures to withdraw the advance increments as well as BS already granted to the petitioners. This has obliged the petitioners to file the instant Constitutional petition challenging the Notification/letter dated 20-3-1991 and also sought an injunctive order. A learned Judge of this Court while entertaining the same, passed the following order on 27-10-1992:- - "According to Annex. 'A' prima facie a teacher who possessed or required F.A./F.Sc was to be allowed two advance increments without any condition, whether he had passed the F.A.
Examination with English subject or not. According to the order dated 20-3-1991, it is intended that no increment is to be given to those who have passed without English subject which amounts to deprive the petitioners of the rights which has already been created in their favour. According to the learned counsel petitioners Nos.1 to 7 who are B.A. Were granted three advance increments and respondents Nos. 2 to 6 and 8 who are F.A. Were granted two increments.
(2) Mr. Tassadaq Hussain Jillani, the learned Addl. Advocate-General has appeared on Court's call to whom copy of the writ petition has been delivered. He shall obtain reports and parawise comments of respondents Nos.1 and 2 and file the same on the next date of hearing.
(3) To come up on 18-11-1992. In the meanwhile the petitioners shall not be reverted from Scale 9 to any lower scale."
' Thereafter, this petition was dismissed on 13-5-1999 on the sole ground, "that the matter related to advance increments which is also a part and parcel of the pay and one of the terms and conditions of service. As such the proper forum to agitate the grievance of the petitioners is the Service Tribunal. The jurisdiction of this Court is expressly barred under Article 212(2) of the Constitution. This petition is, therefore, dismissed for want of jurisdiction." This very order was challenged by the petitioners through an I.C.A. No,107/99 and the same was allowed on 8-2-2000 holding that Article 212(2) of the Constitution would not be attracted to the instant case and the High Court did have the jurisdiction to decide the same on merits and the case was remanded to the Single Bench. Consequently, this petition is being disposed of on merits.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The only question which required determination is as to whether the Notification No,FD.,PR.12-3/87 (Pt.I), dated 20-3-1991, could be applied to the case of the petitioners (who are said to have acquired/improved their academic qualification (Inter and Graduation) from Allama Iqbal Open University) in order to deprive them of the benefits based on Notifications, dated 1-7-1983 and 26- 6-1990 in the shape of advance increments as well as the higher scale i,e, BS-9. For. Ready reference impugned Memo. Dated 20-3 1991 is reproduced as under:-- "To ' The Audit Officer (HQ), Provincial Directorate, Local Fund Audit, Punjab, Lahore.
' Memo. No, FD.PR 12-3/87/(Pt.I). Dated Lahore, the 20-3-1991.
Subject: GRANT OF ADVANCE INCREMENTS FOR ACQUIRING HIGHER QUALIFICATIONS.
' Kindly refer to your memo. No PDP/6(21-II)/1219 dated. 11-12-1991 on the subject noted above.
2. It may be informed that the officials who have passed the Intermediate Examination from AIOU without English are not entitled for advance increments. UNDER SECRETARY (PR)"
5. To resolve the issue, reference can safely be made to the following Notification (No,8- 413/Acad/82/285, dated 12-12-1982) issued by the University Grants Commission:-- "NOTIFICATION ' Subject: Equivalence of Certificates/Degrees issued by Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad, with Certificates/Degrees of the Boards/Universities.
It is hereby notified that Certificates/Degrees issued by Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad (established under an Act of Parliament in 1974) have the same validity and equivalence as those issued by the other Board/Universities in Pakistan and the holders of Certificates and Degrees from Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad are entitled to the same rights and privileges (e.g. Eligibility for various posts or admission to various courses) as are available to those qualifying from other Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education/Universities.
(Sd.)
(MUHAMMAD LATIF VIRK) Director (Academics)
Phone: 40737"
Distribution: ' All Universities; Boards; Public Service Commissions and other concerned agencies ' Office of the Regional Director, Regional Office, ' Allama Iqbal Open University, Pir Khurshid Colony, Multan.
' No, 14-1-3/3594/MN. December, 22, 1988.
' Copies forwarded to all concerned.
(Dr. Abdul Khaliq Qureshi) Regional Director. Phone No, 32800
6. When confronted with the above, learned counsel appearing on behalf of A.-A.G. Submits that had the said Notification been in field, petitioners could have derived the benefits arising therefrom but in the. Presence of another Notification of the University Grants Commission bearing No,8- 413/Acad/80/60, dated 14th December, 1987, petitioners were rightly not entitled to the benefits awarded to them. To appreciate this very submission, the saiu Notification is reproduced as under:-- "Dr. M. Siddiqui Shibli, Registrar, Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad.
' Subject: EQUIVALENCE OF A. I.
0. U. CERTIFICATE/DEGREE. Dear Sir, ' Reference your letter No,P.2-1/87-AR(1)/527, dated 29-11-1987, I am to inform you that UGC accepts the degrees of Allama Iqbal Open University as equivalent to corresponding degrees from other Universities of the country. However, for the purpose of higher education, the 'applicants have to qualify the B.A. Functional English Code 435 from your University.
' For all other purposes the degrees of Al. O.U. Are recognized as equivalent to corresponding degrees of other general Universities of the country. Inconvenience caused due to our letter of even number dated. 4-11-1987 is regretted. Yours sincerely.
(Sd.)
QAZI RIAZ AHMED)
Deputy Director Academics."
' A perusal of this Notification leads to only one conclusion that the degrees of A. I.
0. U. Are valid for all other purposes except for the purpose of higher education. In such a case, one "has to qualify the B.A. Functional English Code 435" from A. I.
0. U. I have asked the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of A.-A.G. As to how this very letter could be used for shattering the stand taken by the petitioners and also in support of the impugned Notification? No answer was given.
7. It is well-settled that if a candidate possesses a qualification considering equivalent by a statutory body or experts, it does not lie with the Government to refuse to give effect to that decision merely on the basis of administrative inconvenience or some other extraneous considerations. Indeed it cannot be disputed that power to prescribe qualification vests in the Government but the denial of lawful benefit to a person who has been certified as possessing equivalent qualification, is clearly violative of Articles 16 & 25 of the Constitution. Even it cannot be disputed that in order to determine the equivalence, the only competent forum available in Pakistan is the Equivalence Committee constituted under section 13(d) of the University Grants Commission-Act (1974). This Standing Committee determines the equivalence of degrees, diplomas and certificates awarded by various Universities and Institutions for purposes of employment and admission in Pakistan. To it learned counsel appearing on behalf of A.-A.G. Also concedes.
8. ' I am convinced that the grievance of the petitioners being genuine merits to be redressed.
Resultantly, the impugned Memo. Dated 20-3-1991 and the subsequent action pursuant thereto by respondent No,3 depriving the petitioners of the benefits already granted to them on the basis of the Notifications dated 25-8-1983 and 26-6-1990, are hereby declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, by allowing this Constitutional petition with no order as to costs.