HAMID FAROOQ DURRANI, J.--- The petitioner has questioned through instant constitutional petition the validity of judgment pronounced on 10-12-2007 by the learned Election Appellate Tribunal in Election Appeal No,27 of 2007. He was declared ineligible for contesting the general elections to Provincial Assembly Constituency A PF-69 through the impugned judgment on the ground of he being not duly educated person. The concerned Returning Officer had though dismissed the objections in the said regard and has found the petitioner as one of the competent candidates through order dated 3-12-2007.
2. Chaudhry Fawad Hussain, Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner and contended that there was no specific objection regarding the deficiency of petitioner in educational qualification in the original objection petition filed before the learned Returning Officer. He was of the opinion that the said ground could not be agitated for the first time by the contesting respondent No,1 through the appeal filed before the learned Election Appellate Tribunal. The learned counsel further argued that the Sanad held by petitioner as issued by Darul Uloom Mehmoodia, Dhandi Azeem Abad, Bannu was equivalent to M.A. Degree. The said Darul Uloom was affiliated with Wafaq-ul-Madraris Al-Arabia, Multan, a recognized institution, therefore, the petitioner was a competent person duly qualified to contest the elections. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel attempted to rely on Notifications issued by the Election Commission on 25th and 29th July, 2002. Copies of the said Notifications were provided by the learned counsel: ' The learned counsel, while referring to judgment in Election Appeal No,9/A of 2007, passed by the Election Tribunal at Lahore on 7-12-2007, urged that the Sanad of the candidate issued by Darul Uloom Mehmoodia, Dhandi Azeem Abad, Bannu was held by the Tribunal to be sufficient educational qualification for contesting the general elections.
3. The learned Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P., appearing on notice by this court, assisted in terms that under the provisions of Chief Executive Order 7 of 2002, the Sanad of Shahadatul Almiya Fil Uloomal Arabia Wal Islamia granted by Wafaq/Tanzeemul Madaris, list whereof as provided in Notification dated 25-7-2002 by the Election Commission of Pakistan, was to provide basis for . Equivalence with that of Graduate/Post-Graduate Degrees for the purposes of eligibility to contest the general elections. In the instant case, the Sanad relied upon by the petitioner was not issued by the, recognized Wafaq/Tanzeem (Institution), therefore, the same could not qualify the petitioner for the purpose.
' We have also heard the special attorney of contesting respondent who opposed the averments made on behalf of the petitioner. He added that the. Madrassa at Bannu was no longer affiliated with Wafaqul Madaris at Multan. In the said regard, he provided a copy of letter issued by Nazim, Central Office, Wafaqul Madaris Al-Arabia Pakistan, Multan. Through the said letter, it is acknowledged that Darul Uloom Mehmoodia at Bannu was not affiliated with the former.
4. The list of approved/recognized Deeni Madaris issued by Higher Education Commission, as provided by the learned Advocate-General, discloses five different Wafaq/Tanzeem and Rabitul Madris besides five individual Madaris/institutions whose final Sanad "Shahadatul Almiya Fil Uloomal Arabia Wal Islamia" is recognized by the Commission as equivalent to M.A. Arabic/Islamic Studies for the purpose of teaching Arabic and Islamic Studies in Colleges and Universities. It is, however, noted therein that for employment in fields other than teaching, such Sanad holders were required to qualify in two additional elective subjects other than Arabic and Islamic Studies in addition to two compulsory subjects of Pakistan Studies and Islamic Studies from a University at the B.A. Level. The name of Darul Uloom Mehmoodia, Bannu, however, does not find mentioned in either of the two categories enumerated in the said list. At this juncture, we would avoid entering into discussion regarding equivalence of Sanad Shahadatul Almiya for the purposes of general elections as statedly the proposition is pending decision before the apex Court. Anyhow, the Higher Education Commission is a competent Body to grant inter se equivalence to various Degrees/Sanads issued at the national and international levels. Admittedly, the said Commission does not recognize the Sanad issued by Darul Uloom Mehmoodia, Bannu to be equivalent to any Degree issued by a University.
It is also an admitted fact that the Sanad relied upon by the petitioner is issued by Darul Uloom Mehmoodia, Dhandi Azeem Abad, Bannu and not the Wafaqul Madaris Al-Arabia at Multan which is an institution recognized for the purpose by the H.E.C. It is also a fact that petitioner claims his eligibility in term of educational qualification on the ground of affiliation granted to the former by the latter in the year, 1999, yet there is no document evidencing the fact that the said Darul Uloom was affiliated with Wafaqul Madaris in the year, 1995 when the petitioner claims to have obtained the Sanad. Learned counsel for the petitioner also could not deny the contents of letters dated 16- 12-2007 issued by Wafaqul Madaris conveying the non-affiliation of concerned Darul Uloom.
5. In the light of the above, we find no exception to the impugned judgment of learned Election Appellate Tribunal which has decided the matter before it in accordance with relevant provisions of law while validly exercising its jurisdiction and authority.
' It would be appropriate to mention here that the judgment passed in Election Appeal No,9/A of 2007 by the learned Tribunal at Lahore would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as the question before the Tribunal was to determine the authenticity and veracity of Sanad issued by Darul Uloom Mehmoodia, Dhandi Azeem Abad, Bannu while the appeal was filed also on the ground that the candidate was pursuing studies in two different tiers hence, was not qualified to contest elections. We also observe that the argument of learned counsel for petitioner in terms that the specific objection was raised by the contesting respondent for the first time in appeal, does not have any force owing to the fact that it was the petitioner who did not furnish the entire particulars qua his educational qualification at the time of filing nomination papers while an exception in the said regard was taken through the objection petition by the respondent.
' In the wake of the above, finding no merit in the petition in hand, we hereby dismissed the same.