' CH. EJAZ YOUSAF, J.---By this common judgment we intend to dispose of all these five petitions which are directed against a common judgment dated 6-12-2007 passed by the learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, whereby the Writ Petitions filed by the private respondents were allowed.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that private respondents had got admission in B.Sc. (Electronics Engineering) course in University College of Engineering and Technology, Islamia University, Bahwalpur (hereinafter referred to as the said College), in 'the year, 1999. After studying for four years they, in 2003, were declared successful by the Islamia University of Bahawalpur (hereinafter referred to as the said University). Thereafter the private respondents applied to different organizations to obtain services/jobs but were disappointed to know that Pakistan Engineering Council(hereinafter referred to as PEC) had not accorded accreditation to the said College. Private respondents, therefore, approached the respondents No,s. 2 and 3, when it transpired that the Islamia University although had been striving hard for the accreditation with PEC but PEC despite visiting the said college, had not issued the required accreditation for those students who had joined aforesaid institution in the year 1999, except for the academic year 2003 and onwards.
Having been left with no remedy, the private respondents approached the High Court by way of Constitutional Petitions referred to herein above which were allowed vide the impugned judgment, hence these petitions.
3. Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that PEC is a statutory body constituted by PEC Act, 1976. The preamble of the Act clearly states that the Council shall regulate the engineering profession with the vision that the engineering profession shall function as a key driving force for achieving rapid and sustainable growth in all national, economic and social fields. The Council also maintains realistic and internationally relevant standard of professional competence and ethics for engineers, technologist and technicians and also license them to competently and professionally promote and uphold the standards. The council also functions as an apex body to encourage and promote the pursuit of excellence in engineering profession and regulates the quality of engineering education, the practice of engineering and technology. Jurisdiction/authority to accredit the engineering programmer of Universities and registered engineers as such rests solely with the petitioners under sections 10 and 14(1) of the PEC Act, 1976. He added that after learning about the announcement made by the Prime Minister of Pakistan regarding establishment of. Engineering College at Bahawalpur, the PEC had informed the Vice-Chancellor of the said University, i,e, the respondent No,2,about the pre-requisites and mandatory requirements of the accreditation vide letter dated 26-2-1999. In May, 2000, they were again informed to apply for accreditation on AC-1 form of PEC and they were also provided guidelines for establishment of engineering programme in Pakistan. In June, 2000, the acting Principal of respondent No,3 confirmed that they were arranging staff and equipment for the college, therefore they would submit prescribed pro forma for accreditation afterwards. However, the college without seeking accreditation/registration with PEC started admission beforehand on their own peril and responsibility. PEC received their first application on 18-3-2003 vide their letter dated 11-3-2003 along with partial fee. In May 2003, PEC informed that their accreditation visit would be carried out in June, 2003 to ascertain as to whether the institution/college fulfils the required criteria for accreditation, but the PEC was restrained from visiting the institution. In July, 2003 PEC again informed the Principal that further delay in visit would affect adversely and advised them to provide technical information immediately. In August 2003, their AC-1 form was returned due to lack of teaching faculty. Thereafter, neither respondent No,3 nor respondent No,2 applied, for accreditation until 18-11-2006 when they applied for accreditation of their B.Sc. Electronics Engineering programme only for 2003 which programme was provisionally allowed for accreditation in 2003, but the earlier programme of 1999 onwards was continued by the college unlawfully and illegally without any facility and without teaching material equipment as was required under the regulations, consequently, PEC's accreditation team informed respondent No,3 that visit will be carried out during 2nd-3rd week of February, 2007 and immediately thereafter.
He further added that prior to starting of Bachelor of Engineering classes, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were well informed of the mandatory requirement of accreditation by PEC under section 10 of PEC Act, 1976 that accreditation of an engineering programme by PEC was mandatory. It was also mandatory for every employer to assign professional engineering work to only those who were registered with PEC as required under section 27 of PEC Act, 1976. He maintained that in the circumstances, the High Court had gone wrong in law by directing the petitioners to allow accreditation to the said college, for the years 1999 to 2003, as it could not have assumed power which was vesting in the petitioners exclusively.
4. Mr. Muhammad Ozair Chughtai, learned counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand while controverting the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that B.Sc. Course in the University College of Engineering and Technology, Islamia University, Bahawalpur, was started pursuant to an announcement and direction made by the prime Minister of Pakistan. Ever since its inception, the University was striving hard to get accreditation with the PEC, however, the needful was avoided by the petitioners on one pretext or the other until 2007, when in consequence of accreditation and Quality Evaluation Committee's (EA & QEC) meeting held on May, 2 and 3 of 2007, University College of Engineering and Technology, Islamia University, Bahawalpur was accorded one year intake of Batch, 2003 only however, nothing was mentioned about the students who had joined the said College, in the year 1999 and thereafter. He maintained that the said College was treated discriminately by the PEC inasmuch as that Dawood College of Engineering and Technology, Karachi, NFC Institute of Engineering and Technological Training, Bahauddin Zikaria University, Multan, Pakistan Navy Engineering College, Karachi and so many other institutions were accorded accreditation by the PEC with retrospective effect, but the respondent College was not accorded accreditation from the year 1999 i,e, from the date of their application. The private respondents and other students who had joined the said College in the year, 1999 and thereafter, were deprived of the benefit of which they were entitled, resultantly they were refused jobs. He added that same issue came up for consideration in the case of CECOS University of I.T. And Emerging Sciences, Peshawar, in Writ Petition No,119/2004 titled "Pervaiz Afzal and others v. Pakistan Engineering Council and others" filed in the Peshawar High Court which was accepted on 5-8-2004 and the PEC, in compliance of that order, implemented the decision. He maintained that in the circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment was unexceptionable.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case, minutely with their assistance.
6. Admittedly, respondent College was granted accreditation by the PEC in the year 2007 but with the intake of Batch 2003 only and nothing was mentioned with regard to the students who had joined the said College in the year, 1999 and thereafter. The learned Judge in the High Court while taking notice of the situation has, in the impugned judgment, unequivocally held that PEC was responsible for such an omission rather there was slackness on its part to impart reply of acceptance or refusal to the University College of Engineering and Technology, Islamia University, Bahwalpur with regard to those years of which session it had commenced from 1999 onward and that it was the duty of the PEC to accord permission of accreditation or to decline it with reasons and to inform the said College about its decision but their inaction adversely affected future of the students besides damaging reputation of the institution and that grant of accreditation for one year by the PEC is indicative of the fact that the University College of Engineering and Technology, Islamia University, Bahawalpur, was not lacking the requirements necessary for the grant of accreditation.
7. It is not disputed by the petitioners that University College of Engineering and Technology, Islamia University, Bahawalpur, had applied for accreditation initially in the year 1999, where after the matter remained under consideration, as correspondence was being made by the parties. As stated above, respondent No,3, was granted accreditation in the year 2007 with the intake of batch of 2003 only, meaning thereby that accreditation was not prospective but it was with retrospective effect. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that since the institution was lacking in requisite qualifications/facilities prior to 2007, 'therefore, accreditation could not have been afforded but the argument has the germs of its own destruction for the simple reason that if the College was lacking in requisite qualifications, prior to 2007, say in the year 2006, as to how then accreditation could have been accorded retrospectively with the intake of the batch of 2003? The decision made by the petitioner, therefore, leads to the clear inference that in the year, 2003, to the institution was not lacking in the requisite qualifications of teaching material and equipment's. In our view, therefore, the learned Judge in the High Court was right in saying that inaction on the part of the petitioner was the main cause and future of those students who were not at fault and had studied for full four years by toiling day and night to gain success could not have been allowed to be married or destroyed by the petitioner's refusal to accredit the College without any reason. We have specifically questioned the learned counsel for the petitioners as to how accreditation was accorded to the other universities, retrospectively, but he is unable to answer the query.
8. Upshot of the above discussion is that we see no merit in these petitions which are accordingly dismissed and leave declined.