1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition is directed against the order dated 20th November, 1974 passed by the Punjab Administrative Tribunal. Lahore, whereby the appeal (C. No. 130/33/74) by respondent No. 1 was accepted.
2. The facts, briefly stated, are that respondent No. 1 entered into Government service as a Demonstrator in Science at the Army Appren--tices School, Rawalpindi on 1st April, 1957. He was appointed as a Lecturer in Physics at the Government College, Sargodha on 19th May, 1958 on the strength of his possessing an M. Sc. Degree. On 22nd March, 1960 he became an Instructor in Radio Electronics at the Government Polytechnic Institute at Rawalpindi. Subsequently, he was promoted as Instructor in Radio Electronics, then as Senior Instructor in Radio Electronics, then Teachers Trainer at a Government Polytechnics Institute and Head Teachers Trainer and Vice-Principal and finally, on 17th January, 1969 to the rank of a Principal, Government Polytechnic Institute. He functioned in this rank till 30th July, 1974 when by a notification issued by the Director Technical Education he was reverted from the post of Principal, Government Polytechnic Institute, Sialkot, to the post of Head Teachers Trainer. Aggrieved by this notification he filed an appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Administrative Tribunal Act, 1974, praying that the impugned notification be set aside and it be declared that on the relevant date he possessed the basic requirement qualifying him for promotion to the post of Principal. He further prayed that a direction he issued to appoint him to the post of Principal. According to the Department, Respondent No. 1, was not qualified for promotion to the host of Principal under the West Pakistan Technical Education Department Gazetted Post) Recruitment Rules, 1966. The qualifications for such a post as contained in Appendix `A' (Group 1) against Serial No. 2 of these rules reads as follows :- S. No.Nomenclature of the postsMinimum qualifications prescribed for appointment by initial recruit--ment.Method of Recruitment 12 3 4 2.Principals Polytechnic Institute.(i) (a) Second Class Engineering Degree From a recognized University or equivalent qualifications from a recognized Institute ;(i) Not less than fifty per cent. by initial recruitment ; OR AND
(b) Diploma from a recognised Institute with A.M. I.E. obtained through examination or equivalent qualification from a recognised Institute ;(ii) No more than fifty per cent. by promotion from among holders of the posts specified in column 2 against Serial No. 3 who possess an Engineer--ing Degree or equiva--lent qualification and nine years profes--sional and/or Tech--nical Education experience.
3. OR
(c) M/Sc. (Physics/Chemistry/Chemical Technology from a recognised University with A. M. I. E. obtained through ex-- amination or equi--valent qualification from a recognized Institute ; AND
(ii) Thirteen years Professional or Technical Education ex--perience or both in Engineering/Indus--trial field and/or Technical Education.
4. The persual of the above shows that for appointment as Principal besides the qualification of M. Sc.
5. In Physics, it is necessary to have the qualifica--tion of A. M. I. E. Obtained through examination or equivalent quali--fication from a recognised Institute. In addition, nine years professional or technical education experience or both in Engineering/ Industrial Field and/or Technical Education was also necessary. The case of Respondent No. 1 was that although until May, 1967 he was only an M. Sc. In Physic but in that year he became a Fellow of the Melbourne Institute of Technology in Australia in the discipline of Communication Engineering The Fellowship of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology is equivalent to A. M. I. E., which in its turn is equivalent to an Engineering Degree. Accordingly, in May, 1967 the Respondent No. 1 became fully qualified to hold the post of Principal of a Polytechnic Institute.
6. The crucial question, therefore, was as to the true interpretation of the expression "nine years professional and technical experience". According to the respondent, he possessed more than nine years experience of technical education and, therefore, fulfilled the requirement of the rules. In support of this plea, he submitted that his experience was liable to be counted from 22nd March, 1960, namely, the date on which he started functioning as Instructor in Radio Electronics. His case was that the mere fact that he was only an M. Sc. In Physics and at that time did not prevent him from gaining experience because he was working as an Instructor in a Technical subject in a Technical Training Institute since 22nd March, 1960 and, as such, he was gaining experience of technical education.
7. On the other band, according to the petitioners herein, the respondent No. 1 could be deemed to have acquired the relevant experience of technical education only after he acquired his technical qualification which, according to them, was not acquired until 1968 (and not in May, 1967, as claimed by respondent No. 1). According to the petitioners, an Instructor in a Technical Institution can be deemed to be gaining experience in technical education only, if he possesses the requisite technical education as distinguished from merely a general education.
8. The Tribunal, however upheld the plea of respondent No. 1 pointing out that he was appointed as an Instructor in Radio Electronics in the Government Polytechnic Institute, Rawalpindi, on 22nd March, 1960. Radio Electronics was an integral part of the curriculum of the Polytechnic Institute and without this subject this course in technical education was not complete. It was, therefore, reasonable to infer that respondent No. 1 was engaged in imparting technical education from that date. The argument that to be able to impart technical education, the respondent No. 1 should have a technical diploma or degree was irrelevant in this context. It was observed that "obviously the teaching of Radio Electronics at a Polytechnic Institute must of necessity be oriented technically, and it is futile to argue that the appellant (respondent No. 1 herein) was not engaged in imparting technical education from 22nd March, 1960." It was, therefore, held that the respondent No. 1's experience for the purposes of appointment as Principal of a Polytechnic Institute should count from 22nd March, 1960. His appeal was accepted to this extent. However, the prayer that he should be promoted or continue to hold the post of Principal was not granted on the ground that it was not for the Tribunal to decide this question as it related to his fitness for the said appointment.
9. This petition for leave to appeal under Article 212 (3) of the Constitution has been filed by the Secretary, Education Department, and the Director Technical Education Punjab to challenge the finding that respondent No. 1 fulfilled the requirements for appointment as a Principal.
10. This somewhat lengthy review of the history of the case shows that the Tribunal turned down the plea of the petitioners that respondent No. 1's experience for the purpose of appointment as Principal should be counted from the date when he actually acquired qualification equivalent to A.
11. M. I. E. From a recognised institute which was not until 1967 or 1968 and not from any date prior to it.
12. The Tribunal, therefore, held that respondent No. 1's experience for the purpose of eligibility to promotion as Principal of the Polytechnic Institute should count from 22nd March. 1960 the date on which he became an Instructor in Radio Electronics at Government Polytechnic Institute, Rawalpindi. It is submitted before us that the Tribunal in coming to the above conclusion had failed to take note of the Services and General Administration Department's U. U. No. S.O. XII (S&GAD) 3- 83/68 dated 28th March, 1969 whereby a clear advice was given by the S&GAD which was the rule- making authority in the case of respondent No. 1, namely, that experience for the purpose of promotion can only be counted from the date that the person acquires the minimum or adequate qualification that are prescribed for that post. The Tribunal, it is submitted, also erred in holding some other instances where persons were not held eligible for promotion to the post of Principal because they did not possess nine years experience after acquiring the technical education as required by the rules. It was also submitted that the view of the Tribunal that the experience as Instructor for Radio Electronics, Teachers Trainer and Head Teachers Trainer was equivalent to the qualifying experience required for such a high post as that of a Principal of a Polytechnic Institute, was erroneous as for such a post experience at a very high level of technical education was required and this was not possible until the incumbent had actually secured the minimum necessary educational degree or qualifications stipulated in the rules relating to the experience required.
13. After hearing the learned counsel, in support of this petition, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The clause (2) of Column 4 of the qualifications reproduced in Appendix `A' shows that the eligibility of the post of Principal depends upon (1). The possession of an Engineering Degree or equivalent qualification and (2) Nine years professional and/or Technical Education experience. Thus, if a candidate has both the qualifications, namely, he possesses the degree of A.
14. M. I. E. And also has the technical and/or professional experience of nine years he would be eligible for the post of Principal. There does not appear to be any condition that only such experience which is subsequent to obtaining the degree of A. M. I. E. Is to be considered. No such limitation can be legitimately read into the Rules. The view taken by the learned Tribunal, therefore, is unexceptional. Even otherwise under Article 212 (3) of the Constitution, an appeal to this Court from a judgment of the Administra--tive Tribunal is competent only if this Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law of public importance is involved. This does not appeal to be the case here.
15. This petition, therefore, fail and is dismissed hereby.