SAVED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.--- Elections for the Provincial Assembly Punjab were held on 10.10.2002 in which respondent No. 1 was successful in obtaining highest number of votes. This is petition under S. 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 by Ch. Muhammad Saboor Kisana whereby Notification dated 20-10-2002, declaring respondent. No. 1 as the returned candidate from PP-121, Sialkot-I is sought to be assailed. The petition was tried hereby by the erstwhile Tribunal and was dismissed on 16-7-2004 on a preliminary issues. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, however, remanded the matter by means e the order dated 19-10-2006 passed in C.A. No. 2028/2004, which reads as follows:- "Learned counsel for the parties, after having argued the case at some length and having gone through the provisions of Sections 54 and 55 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and the law the on the subject particularly, the judgment in the case Engineer lqbal Zafar Jhagra and others v. Khalilur Rehman and 4 others (2000 SCMR 250), conceding the legal position consented for setting aside the impugned judgment and remand of the case to Tribunal for decision on merits. In view of consenting statement made by the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is converted into an appeal, the impugned judgment is set aside and case is remanded to the Tribunal for decision on merits in accordance with law. Appeal stands > allowed with costs."
The Election Commission of Pakistan accordingly entrusted the petition to this Tribunal in which after extensive hearing of the matter order dated 15-6-2007 was passed, which contains the factual and legal background. It is to the effect:-
2. The learned counsel: for the petitioner has primarily laid stress that respondent. No. 1 was not qualified to be elected as Member of the Assembly as he was not a graduate possessing Bachelor's degree. The provisions of Article 8A of the Conduct of General Elections Order, 2002 and Section 99 (1) (cc) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 are being invoked for this propose.
It has candidly been stated (and already so recorded by the erstwhile Tribunal) that he would not be pressing the plea about the genuineness of Ex-R-2, (the purported degree issued by Ashworth College United States of America) but would emphasize that the same had no effect, and cannot be treated as equivalent to Bachelor's degree to confer the status of graduate upon respondent No. 1. Such alternative pleas according to him are permissible under the law in view of R. 9 of 0. VI, R.
7 of 0. VII and R. 1 (5) of 0. XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is contended that the equivalence certificate issued by a functionary of University Grants Commission on 23-08-2002 is without any basis and has no validity in law as the matter was never placed before the Equivalence Committee constituted under Section 13 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1974.
According to him no individual could issue any such equivalence certificate as has been done in the instant case. Cites Raja Muhammad Nasir v. Mahmood Shaukat Bhatti and 4 others (PLD 2003 Lahore 213) and Abdul Sattar Lalika v. Ch. Sajjad Ahmed and another (2003 MLD 459) in support of his contention that the Tribunal while trying and deciding the petition can go into the question of validity and legality of degree or equivalence certificate. According to him the Tribunal constituted under the law has exclusive jurisdiction in all matters relating to elections. Apart from this it is vehemently contended that admittedly respondent No. 1 had failed in F.A. And has also failed to satisfy as to how he acquired the alleged degree from Ashworth College, USA, Reference has been made to Muhammad Rafique Tarrar v. Justice Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, Acting Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan and 6 others (PLD 1998 Lahore 461).
3. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent (respondent No. 1) has laid great emphasis on the fact that though respondent No. 1 did not possess Bachelor's degree from Pakistan,. Yet he had been ,conferred a degree of "Associate of Science in Business Management" dated 15-82002 by Ashworth College, United States of America. It is contended that such a degree had legal efficacy, having been recognized by the University Grants Commission and the certificate of equivalence issued by the said Commission. According to him such a certificate once issued is final, the validity whereof cannot be questioned nor gone into by the Tribunal who is creation of a special law. Reference in this context is being made to S. 99(1)(cc) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and Article 8A of the Conduct of General Elections Order, 2002. Another aspect which is sought to be highlighted is that the petitioner is precluded from taking self-contradictory pleas inasmuch as firstly he pleaded that the degree pressed into service by respondent No. 1 was fake, forged and bogus but later on the changed his stance and questioned the legality and validity of equivalence certificate issued by the University Grants Commission. It is contended that it was not an alternative plea but was a self-contradictory stance, not permissible in the judicial proceedings before a judicial forum. With reference to the statutory provisions of Article 8A of the Conduct of General Elections Order, 2002 and S. 99(i)(cc) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, it is contended that the case of respondent No. 1 falls within the clause 'or any degree recognized as equivalent thereto by the University Grants Commission under the University Grants Commission Act, 1974 (XXIII of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force. According to him phrase "or any degree "recognized as equivalent" was of great relevance and importance. It is thus contended that since the statutory body viz. University Grants Commission nas granted such a certificate of equivalence, the same cannot be disregarded by anyone including this Tribunal. The learned counsel endeavored to draw distinction between the concept of judicial review and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the statute. He has cited Akhlaq Hussain and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and others (1989 MLD 3584), Muhammad Sadiq and others v. University of Sindh and another (PLD 1996 Supreme Court 182), Maulana Abdullah v. Returning Officer and others (2003 SCMR 195) and Syed Abdul Latif Shah v. A.I Muhammad Khan and others (2004 MLD 36).
4. At this stage, a brief survey of the legal position may be of use. Before the general elections were held in October, 2002, the conduct of General Election Order, 2002 (Chief Executive 's Order No. 7 of 2002) was promulgated. Article 8A was inserted vide Chief Executive's Order No. 17 of 2002, dated 24.6.2002, laying down educational qualifications for the. Members of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies. According to this "........................ a person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or a: Provincial Assembly unless he is at least a graduate possessing a Bachelor degree in any discipline or any degree recognized as equivalent by the University Grants Commission under the University Grants Commission Act, 1974 (XXIII of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force." A corresponding qualification was inserted in S. 99.(1) (cc) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976.
5. As has been noted above, being a graduate possessing Bachelor's degree or equivalent thereto is one of the qualification for being elected or chosen as member of the Assembly. It is a statutory requirement under the relevant laws i.e. S.99 (1)(cc) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and Article 8A of the conduct of General Election Order, 2002. The election is a process, which ultimately culminates into the declaration of the result and assumption of office i.e. Member of the relevant House of Parliament/Assembly. Chapter-1 of Part VIII of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 i.e. Articles 213 to 226 take care of the elections. Article 225 lays down that:- "No election to a House or a Provincial Assembly shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such Tribunal and in such manner as may be determined by Act of Majlis-e- Shoora (Parliament)."
The Tribunal so envisaged by Article 225 is the one as is appointed by the Chief Election Commissioner, Pakistan under S.57 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. Chapter VII of the Act deals with election disputes of which S. 57 is one of the provisions. It is thud evident and obvious that all disputes relating and concerning the election are to be dealt with by the Election Tribunal while trying and hearing an election petition. Reference to the provisions of S. 68 of the Representation of the People Act, 197.6 also strengthens such a view, according to which the Tribunal is empowered to declare the election of a returned candidate to be void if it is satisfied that:---
(a) (b) "the returned candidate was not, on the nomination day, qualified for, or was disqualified from, being elected as a Member; or Since the very qualification of respondent No. 1 has been questioned through this election petition before the Tribunal, it is for the Tribunal to satisfy whether he was qualified or not from being elected as a Member.
Thud, such a power vests with the Tribunal beyond any doubt.
6. So fare as the issue as to the correctness, legality or validity of a degree or equivalence certificate granted and issued by .The University Grants Commission/Higher Education Commission is concerned; there remains no obscurity in view of the precedents of the superior Courts that such an issue can be raised before and tried by the Tribunal when confronted with such an issue. Reference in this context may be made to Raja Muhammad Nasir v. Mahmood Shaukat Bhatti (PLD 2003 Lahore 213) Abdul Sattar Lalika v. Ch. Sajjad Ahmad and another (2003 MLD 459), Maulana Abdullah v. Returning Officer and others (2003 SCMR 195), Sanaullah Khan and others v.
District Returning Officer,. Mianwali and others (PLD' 2005 SC 858) and Naqeeb Ulah Khan v. Malik lmran Khan and 6 others (PLD 2006 Peshawar 21). It may be observed that introduction of educational qualification for Members of Parliament/Assemblies has already received approval of the Honourable Supreme of Pakistan in Pakistan Muslim League (Q) v. Chief Executive of Islamic Republic of Pakistan etc. (PLD 2002 SC 994). Thus, not only the Election Tribunal is obliged to decide such an issue when raised before it as to the candidate's qualification for contesting election. It also can pray as to the legality and validity of .The degree or equivalence granted by the University Grants Commission/ Higher Education Commission.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the petitioner had taken inconsistent or self-contradictory position has not impressed me nor can be countenanced inasmuch as that there can be no bar for a party to abandon a plea and bank upon an alternative ground or plea. Before the erstwhile Tribunal, the learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that "he does not challenge the genuineness of:the documents being relied upon, but will make submissions as to the effect of these documents." Such a plea can by no means be termed as inconsistent or self-destructive and a party cannot be stopped or precluded to adopt such a course. In the present case the University Grants Commission. (which. Now stand replaced by Higher Education Commission by virtue of Ordinance (LIII of 2002), dated 11-9-2002) had issued the equivalence certificate, on 23-6-2002 (Ex. R. 1), in favour of respondent No. 1 on his application of the same date without reference to the Equivalence Committee, which had its genesis in S. 13 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1974 and now S. 10(1)(o) of the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002. In such peculiar circumstances the plea sought to be advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is well permissible,
8. After having disposed of pure legal aspects of the matter, it is now the stage to advert to the crucial controversy. The touchstone for weighing and appreciating the respective contentions of the learned counsel is the pleadings and the evidence in the case. Reference; therefore, may be made in particular to paragraphs No. 3, 8 and clause (iii) of the grounds of the petition. The relevant portions and reply thereto are as follows:--- Contents of petition Reply
3. That it would be advantageous to note that under Section 99(1) (cc) read with Article 8-A of the conduct of General Elections Order, 2002, no candidate was eligible to contest the aforesaid election unless he was at least a Graduate possessed with a Bachelor's degree recognized as equivalent by the University Grants Commission Act, 1974 (XXIII of 1974). Correct. It is pointed out that the petitioner has himself accepted the proposition that University Grants Commission has the exclusive power to recognize the equivalence of a Foreign Degree with Graduation from an Educational Institution in Pakistan. This is an admission as to the exclusive role ascribable to a special forum under a special statute. As shall appear in sequel paragraphs, the legal effect of his admission is that the Certificate of Equivalence granted by this Commission attached with the election petition as Annex-D thereof has conclusive force.
8. The mere issuance of the eouivalence certificate of the University Grants Commission does not quality any person to contest the election unless it is proved that the same is issued after - holding a thorough enquiry on the basis of any standard / principle being maintained for issuance , of equiva :unce certificate by LUniversity Grants Commission, Islamabad which is not available on any record. Issuance of equivalence certificate in connivance with the respondent No. 1 is illegal and renders the respondent No. 1 disqualified to contest the election. In this view of the matter the notification dated 2010-2002 is illegal and the same is having been issued without any lawful.
8. Denied. Quite to the contrary, the stand of the petitioner is that the equivalence certificate in question is conclusive of the facts certified thereby in so far as it is a statutory body,1 which is to be treated as a special forum. This Tribunal cannot substitute its findings for the certificate in question. On this basis, the ara under reply is a sufficient ground for dismissal of the election petition itself as the certificate in question has conclusive effect in relation to matters certified by it i.e. Equivalence of the degree possessed by the answering respondent with B.A.
Degree.
(iii). That since respondent No. 1 does not possess the required qualification in view of Section 99(1) (cc) of the Representation of People Act, 1976 read with Article 8-A of the Conduct of General Election Orders, 2002, therefore, he was not eligible to contest the election in question. To better appreciate the point mooted in the petition, Section 99(1) (cc) ibid is as under:- "he is at least a graduate, possesses a Bachelor's degree in any discipline or any degree recognized as equivalent thereto by the University Grants Commission under the University Grants Commission Act, 1974 (XXIII of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force." (iii) This inference is based on the assumption that the answering respondent is not qualified. The assumption itself is baseless.
The perusal of the afore-referred legal provision of law would manifestly indicate that the requisite qualification to become a candidate of the Provincial Assembly is Graduation which is a mandatory provisions of law, therefore, by using bogus certificate like the certificate in question the respondent No. 1 was not eligible to contest the election held on 10-10-2002. The subsequent proceedings declaring him to be a member of Provincial Assembly while notifying, him as returned candidate are also illegal and having been undertaken without lawful authority.
Such controversial assertions/pleadings gave rise to several issues as were framed by the learned Tribunal then seized of the matter. At the present however, issue No. V and VI are relevant and are reproduced:- "V. Whether respondent No.1 was not qualified to contest the election from Constituency No. PP 121 - Sialkot-I ? OPP.
VI. Whether the certificate of equivalence issued in favour of respondent No. 1 by the University Grants Commission is illegal? OPP.
The parties led evidence in support of their respective pleas :
9. The admitted position in the case is that respondent No. 1 was not graduate possessing Bachelor's degree from Pakistan. He however invoked and produced a degree dated 15.8.2002 (Ex.R.
2) from Ashworth College, USA and applied for equivalence certificate to the University Grants Commission on 23-8-2002. His application to that effect is not on the record, however, the letter issued by the University Grants Commission dated 23-8-2002, (Ex. R- 1), makes mention of such an application which is of the same date It reads as follows:- "Mr. M Ajmal Cheema, 7-Bilal House, Muradia Road, Model Town, Sialkkot.
Subject: Equivalence of Degree of Associate of Science in Business Management from Ashworth College, USA.
Dear Sir, With reference to your application dated 23-8-2002 on the subject, it is informed that the Ashworth College is an accredited College of USA. The University Grants Commission recognizes the degree of Associate of Science in Business Management awarded to you by Ashworth College, USA as equivalent to Bachelor degree from Pakistan. It may be noted that the letter is being issued for election purposes.
Yours faithfully, (Muhammad Javed Khan)"
It was issued by Muhammad Javed Khan (PW-2) on the same date. Since according to the learned counsel for the petitioner such a prompt issuance of certificate on the same date was indicative of unusual haste, the legal efficacy thereof is sought to be questioned. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has, however, endeavoured to dispel any such impression by suggesting that the Election Commission of Pakistan itself had urged the University Grants Commission, Islamabad that for this purpose the Election Schedule may be kept in _view. The possibility that the Election Schedule since had been announced, the issuance of equivalence certificates was done so quickly, cannot be totally ruled out. Indeed there was some correspondence for this purpose between the Election Commission and the University Grants Commission. However, now that the elections have been over long ago the doubt as to the grant and issuance of equivalence certificate-need to be allayed. It is necessary because from the letter dated 23-8-2002 (Ex.R-1), it is evident that the equivalence certificate was issued to respondent No. 1 on the same day (the date of application) without any reference to the equivalence Committee constituted under Section 13 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1974. The basis of such equivalence certificate was laterly disclosed a decision of the Equivalence Committee taken in the 42nd meeting on 4-3-1999 (Ex.R-3). It was so deposed by Abdul Qadoos, Education Officer, Higher Education Commission, Islamabad who appeared as PW-1. He had admitted that the application of respondent No. 1 had not been placed before the Equivalence Committee. In his statement as. PW-2, Muhammad Javed Khan, Director (Accreditation and Attestation) Higher Education Commission, Islamabad, deposed that equivalence certificate Ex. R-1 was issued on the same day (23-8-2002) when application was made by the respondent No. 1. He however, made reference to the letters issued by the Election Commission of Pakistan for such a speedy action. The petitioner Ch. Muhammad Saboor Kisana appeared as PW-3 and emphatically stated that respondent No. 1 did not possess any graduation degree from any foreign university. Respondent No. 1 Muhammad Ajmal Cheema appeared as RW-2 and stated that he had graduated from Ashworth College in USA. It was, however, admitted by him that he had failed to. Qualify F.A. Examination and that "I -did not pass either F.A. Or B.A. Examination from any Institution in Pakistan. I had deposited th examination fee with the Ashworth College but w not formally admitted to the said Institution." It further stated by him that "I do not remember th of the qualifying test. It was, however, some the middle of July, 2002. I took the examin building of a College in New York design purpose . The four semesters comprised 20 papers. I do not remember the dates of appearing in these 20 papers. I had appeared in these 20 papers within 20 days of the first paper. The examination had commenced after about 12 days of the deposit of the fees by me." The cumulative appreciation of the material on the record strongly suggests a due probe and scrutiny by the competent forum i.e. Equivalence Committee of Higher Education Commission, the successor of University Grants Commission as to the worth of degree claimed by respondent No. 1.
The Higher Education Commission came into existence vide Higher Education Commission Ordinance No. 2002, Ordinance No. LIII of 2002, dated 11-9-2002 and took the place of University Grants Commission with the repeal of University Grants Commission Act, 1974. One of the functions of the Higher Education Commission as specified in S. 10(1)(o) is to 'determine the equivalence and recognition of degrees, diplomas and certificates awarded by Institutions within the country and abroad." The Commission is empowered to setup various Committees under S. 13 of the Ordinance to effectively perform its functions. Equivalence mittee is one of such Committees whose function "der the recognition Of degrees of local well as equivalence of degree from vis-a-vis the adegrees of -.Ling in view the pleadings sue i.e. Issue No. VI
(z) .Arties, it has absolutely 1/4rz.) _quivalence Committee of sion considers the degree ,4) .A. Sought to be invoked by (7.) order to determine its standards and criteria of the Commission. For this purpose respondent No. 1 may provide all such relevant information/material to the Commission/Equivalence Committee who will on consideration of the matter, prepare report within a fortnight.
10. The conclusions I have reached may be summarized as under:---
(i) To be elected or chosen as a Member of Assembly, one has to be a graduate possessing a Bachelor's degree in any discipline or degree recognized as equivalent thereto by the Commission.
(ii) The statutory body for determining and granting equivalence is the commission. As contemplated by law, any such dispute as to "equivalence" can appropriately be resolved by the Equivalence Committee set up by the Commission.
(tii) The determination so made by the Equivalence Committee of the Commission will have statutory backing and binding force.
(iv) Since graduation is one of the qualifications as per S. 99 (1) (cc) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and Article 8A of the Conduct of General Elections Orders, 2002 any issue or dispute as to whether a candidate is qualified to contest the election or qualified to be elected or chosen as a member is necessary adjunct of the "election" process.
(v) But virtue of Article 225 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 all election disputes are' determinable by the Election Tribunal appointed under Representation of the People Act, 1976 through election petition, the forum thus to decide any issue as to qualification of a candidate/member (including the genuineness - of degree or validity/legality of equivalence) can be raised before the Tribunal who by virtue of S. 68 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 is obliged to take decision thereabout.
(vi) Any party to a lis is entitled to abandon a plea, and take alternative plea which is not inconsistent or contradictory. Likewise a party Can ask for a lesser relief than the one claimed in the petition.
Accordingly the learned Deputy Attorney General Pakistan who was accompanied by the learned Legal Advisor of Higher Education Commission, produced a report dated 22-6-2007 Mark 'A' and the following order was passed on 2-7-2007:--- "Pursuant to order dated 15-6-2007 report Mark 'A' (in sealed envelope) has been produced today by the learned Deputy Attorney General, Pakistan who had been assigned this task and was directed to establish contact with the Higher Education 'Commission. It has been opened in presence of all concerned. It has been read out. It shows that despite the order dated 15-6-2007, the matter has not been placed before the Equivalence Committee of Higher Education Commission and rather the issuance of certificate dated 23-8-2002 is sought to be justified.
Needless to mention that in view of the evidence led by the parties before the Tribunal it had been observed that "now that the elections have been over long ago the doubt as to the grant and issuance of equivalence certificate need to be allayed. It is necessary because from the letter dated 23-8-2002 (Ex. R-1), it is evident that the 'equivalence certifiCate was issued to respondent No. 1 on the same day (the date of application) without any reference to the Equivalence Committee constituted under Section 13 of the University Grants Commission Act; 1974. The basis of such equivalence certificate was lately disclosed a decision of the Equivalence Committee taken in the 42nd meeting on 4-3-1999 (Ex. R-3). It was so deposed by Abdul Qadoos, Election Officer, Higher Education, Commission, Islamabad who appeared as PW-1. He had admitted that the application of respondent No. 1 had not Been placed before the Equivalence Committee. In his statement as PW-2, Muhammad Javed Khan, Director (Accreditation &: Attestation) Higher Education Commission, Islamabad, deposed that equivalence certificate Ex .R-I was issued on the same day (23-8-2002) when application was made by respondent No. 1." The order of 15-6-2007 contains reasons for reference of the matter to the Equivalence Committee and it was observed that the "cumulative appreciation of the material on the record strongly suggests a due probe and scrutiny by the competent forum . i.e. Equivalence Committee of Higher Education Commission, the successor of University Grants Commission as to the worth of degree claimed by respondent No. 1."
It was further observed that "it has absolutely become necessary:, that the Equivalence Committee of Higher Education Commission considers the degree of Ashworth College, U.S.A sought to be invoked by respondent No. 1 in order to determine its equivalence as per the standards and criteria of the Commission." The order appears to have been deliberately ignored and attempt has been made to circumvent the same by the official of the Commission equating this matter with a past precedent i.e. The matter of Zaibun-Nisa. Even this aspect as to whether that was identical case ipso facto applicable to the instant case was a matter to be considered by the Equivalence Committee. But strangely enough the official who had issued the certificate dated 23-8-2002 has sent the report without reference of the matter to the Equivalence Committee. Today, Malik Anwar Mukhtar, Advocate, the learned Legal Advisor for the Commission is present. He urges-for adjournment so that the meeting of the Equivalence Committee is convened and the matter is placed before the same for consideration, as per the order of the Tribunal dated 15-6-2007 and of today. Let the needful be done as early as possible.
To come up on 6-7-2007 when complete record alongwith the proceedings of the Committee will be produced."
Today minutes of the Special Meeting of Equivalence and Accreditation Committee of the Commission held on 57-2007 have been produced in a sealed cover, which has been opened in presence of the learned counsel for the parties and read out. The decision of the Equivalence Committee in its relevant aspects is as follows:--- "Prof. Dr. S. Sohail H. Naqvi, Executive Director HEC informed that as per international norms on mutual recognition, the degrees/diplomas are awarded under the rules in vogue in a particular country. Other counties are not in a position to question the validity of degrees/diplomas awarded by accredited/chartered universities/ institutions of a particular country but to consider them as equivalent to corresponding degrees. This principle has already been accepted by the Equivalence Committee of erstwhile University Grants Commission in its 17th meeting held on March 20, 1986.
The Committee noted that. Mr. Muhammad Ajmal Cheema obtained his Associate degree from Ashworth College, Georgia, which is an accredited institution of USA. As per system of education USA, as contained in 'World Guide to Higher Education - A Comparative Survey of System and Degrees and Qualification' published by UNESCO, it was the prerogative of admitting institution to determine conditions for admission.
Therefore, the Committee unanimously resolved that:- "the Associate Degree awarded by Ashworth College, Georgia - an accredited institution in USA to Mr. Muhammad Ajmal Cheema is recognized as equivalent to Bachelors' degree involving 14 years of education from Pakistan."
It needs no reiteration that Higher Education Commission is the competent forum for the determination of equivalence of certificates, degrees, qualifications etc., which has constituted "Equivalence and Accreditation Committee" for such purposes. Article 8-A of the Conduct of General Elections Order, 2002 and S. 99 (1) (cc) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 not only envisages the vesting of such a power and function in the Commission but also accords due relevance to the findings/views of the said Commission. In the instant case the Committee comprising six Professors has come to the conclusion that the degree produced by respondent No. 1 from Ashworth College, Georgia "is recognized as equivalent to Bachelors' degree involving 14- years of education from Pakistan." There thus remains no further scope for this Tribunal to probe or question the decision of such a high powered committee . In such view of the matter issue No. 5 and 6 stand answered accordingly.
As a result of the above, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. .