' JAVED IQBAL, J.---This appeal is directed against judgment dated 3-2-2010 whereby Election petition preferred on behalf of Mian Imran Masood (respondent) has been accepted with the direction to the Election Commission of Pakistan to take necessary steps to conduct fresh election in PP-Ill-Gujrat, hence this appeal.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that " Mian Imran Masood petitioner has filed this election petition under section 52 of Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976 against Haji Nasir Mehmood and 11 others alleging therein that he along with the other private respondents had filed their nomination papers to contest the election from PP-III-Gujrat. The degree possessed by respondent No,1 was not lawful being not recognized by the competent authority (University) as required by the Election Laws and on the basis thereof, he could not be held to be a graduate and was liable to be disqualified as an elected candidate. The objection was earlier raised by respondent No,2 before the Returning Officer whereupon nomination papers of respondent No,1 were rejected on 3-12-2007. Aggrieved of the said order respondent No,1 filed Election Appeal No,15- R/2007 before the learned Election Tribunal Punjab, Lahore High Court, Lahore' which was allowed by the then learned Election Tribunal vide order, dated 7-12-2007 on the ground that the objection raised by respondent No,2 could appropriately be dealt with by filing an election petition under section 32 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976 after the elections. Thereafter the petitioner as well as the private respondents contested the election and respondent No,1 has been elected as Member of the Provincial Assembly." The election was assailed by means of Election petition before the Election Tribunal comprising of a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. After completion of necessary formalities and recording the evidence pro and contra, the appeal preferred on behalf of respondent has been accepted declaring, the election of appellant as void and directing fresh election in PP-III-Gujrat, hence this appeal.
3. Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court entered appearance on behalf of appellant and urged with vehemence that legal and factual aspects of the controversy have not been appreciated in its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.
In order to substantiate the said contention, which appears to be prime one, it is contended that the learned Election Tribunal has misinterpreted and misconstrued the provisions as enumerated section 99(cc) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (Act No,LXXXV of 1976) and Article 8-A of the Conduct of General Election Order, 2002 (Chief Executive's Order No,7 of 2002) which being identical, inter alia, provides that candidate for election to the National/Provincial Assembly should at least be a graduate possessing Bachelor's Degree in any discipline and it is never the mandatory requirement of law that such degree should be recognized by the Education Commission which aspect of the matter went unnoticed causing serious prejudice against the appellant. It is argued that University Grants Commission/Higher Education Commission has no role whatsoever concerning election and besides that no question of equivalence of the degree was involved hence the question of any opinion or advice from Higher Education Commission does not arise. It is submitted that two parts of section 99(cc) are clearly disjunctive and any interpretation by ignoring the two parts of section 99(cc) would not be in accordance with well- recognized principles of interpretation. It is also pointed out that the provisions as enumerated in section 99(cc) are penal in nature and therefore, in case of any doubt benefit should be given to the appellant. In this regard reference has been made to Abdul Sattar Lalika v. Saijad Ahmed and another (2003 MLD 459). It is next contended that the evidence of two witnesses produced on behalf of respondents before the learned Election Tribunal has not denied the issuance of degree in favour of appellant which could not be appreciated properly and moreso the relevant provisions of University of East, Hyderabad Act, 2004 (Sindh Act No,XI/2004) have been ignored. Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court in this context referred the provisions as enumerated in section 4(c) whereby the University has been authorized to award and confer degree's, diplomas and certificates and thus being a chartered University the statutory powers to grant a degree as conferred upon it neither could be enhanced nor reduced by the learned Election Tribunal. It is contended emphatically that the relevant record on the basis whereof degree was issued to the appellant was misplaced and damaged due to flood and heavy rains and the ground-floor of University of East submerged into water destroying the record room and the library and therefore, the relevant record could not be produced which aspect of the matter has not been considered properly by the learned Election Tribunal in spite of the fact that an intimation was given to the Director General, Higher Education Commission, Islamabad by the Vice-Chancellor of the University of East. It is argued that non-availability of record was not relevant as the degree of the appellant was attested by the Higher Education Commission. It is contended that the will of the electorate on the ground of eligibility of the elected representative cannot be overlooked without having cogent and concrete evidence which was never produced before the learned Election Tribunal. Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned Sr. Advocate Supreme Court also argued that non-appearance of appellant before the learned Election Tribunal would have no substantial bearing on merits of the case and the adverse inference as drawn by the learned Election Tribunal is not in accordance with law and well entrenched principles of natural justice.
4. Mr. Wasim Sajjad, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of Mian Imran Masood (respondent No,1) and controverted the view point as canvassed at bar by Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the appellant with the submission that no infirmity or illegality could be pointed out by the learned Sr. Advocate Supreme Court for the appellant justifying interference in the well based judgment of the learned Election Tribunal, Mr. Wasim Sajjad, learned Sr. Advocate Supreme Court has supported the judgment impugned for the reasons enumerated therein further submission that the degree possessed by the appellant cannot be considered lawful as it was never recognized by the Higher Education Commission and besides that the University of East was not competent to award such degrees being not a chartered University as is indicative from the correspondence made by the Higher Education Commission with Government of Sindh showing its un-satisfaction to the efficiency, competency, capability and capacity of the University. It is also pointed out that the objection qua validity of Bachelor's Degree was before the Returning Officer and nomination papers of appellant were rejected.
' However, he was allowed to contest election by the learned Election Tribunal by means of order date 17-12-2007 for the reason that such objection could have been dilated and decided by filing an Election petition under section 52 of the Representation of People Act, 1976 after the election.
5. The learned counsel on behalf of the parties have referred the following law and authorities in support of their esteemed views:--
(1) Article 8-A of the Conduct of General Elections Order, 2002.
(2) Section 99(1)(cc) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976.
(3) Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2009.
(4) University Grants Commission Act, 1974.
(5) Section 10(1)(o) of the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002.
(6) University of East Act, 1999 (X1 of 2004).
(7) Sanaullah Khan v. District Returning Officer (PLD 2005 SC 858).
(8) Abdul Sattar Lalika v. Sajjad Ahmed (2003 MLD 459).
(9) Muhammad Nasir Mahmood v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2009 SC 107).
(10) Muhammad Yaqub v. Chairman, Election Tribunal, N.-W.F.P. (sic).
(11) Samiuddin Qureshid v. Collector of Customs (PLD 1989 SC 335).
(12) Samar Pervaiz v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (PLD 1971 SC 838).
6. We have carefully examined the respective contentions as agitated on behalf of the parties in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have minutely perused the judgment impugned. The pivotal question which needs determination would be the Academic qualifications for which the following issues have been framed by the learned Election Tribunal:-- "('1) Whether the election petition has not been verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as well as section 55(3) of the Act? OPR
(2) Whether the petition in hand is not maintainable? OPR.
(3) Whether the petition in hand is not within time? OPR
(4) Whether the matter in question has been decided by the Supreme Court as well as Lahore High Court in the first round of litigation initiated by the respondent No,2, if so, then what is its effect? OPR
(5) Whether degree of BBA of respondent No,1 issued by "University of East, Hyderabad, Pakistan is forged/fake and without relevant record? OPP
(6) Whether the degree of BBA of respondent No,1 is not recognized by Higher Education Commission of Pakistan, if so, what is its effect? OPP
(7) Whether respondent No,1 was not having due educational qualification on the nomination day, if so, what is its effect? OPP
(8) Whether postal ballot papers cast in favour of petitioner have not been counted in his favour, and it requires re-counting ? OPP
(9) Whether any malpractice has been committed by respondent No,1? OPP
(10) Whether respondent No,1 is liable to be declared as disqualified for contesting election on the nomination day? OPP
(11) Relief. "
7. In our view, issues Nos. 5, 6 and 7 clinch the controversy. We would, however, like to dilate upon the prime contention of Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned Sr. Advocate Supreme Court, at first instance, who argued with vehemence that the provisions as contained in section 99(cc) and Article 8-A of the Conduct of General Election Order, 2002 (Chief Executive Order No,7 of 2002) have misinterpreted and misconstrued. According to learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of appellant the only mandatory prerequisite to contest such election as prescribed under law was that the candidate should at least be graduate possessing a "Bachelor's Degree" in any discipline and therefore, the question of its recognition by the Higher Education Commission does not arise.
The relevant provisions of section 99(cc) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 are reproduced herein below for ready reference:-- "99. Qualification and disqualification.---(1) A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of an assembly unless.
(a) ..
(b) ..
(c) ..
(cc) 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."
' The relevant provisions of Article 8-A of the Conduct of General Elections Order, 2002 are as follows:-- "8A. Educational qualification for a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) and Provincial Assembly.---Notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the Senate (Election) Act, 1975 (LI of 1975), the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (LXXXV of 1976) or any other law for the time being in force, 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." - 8. A bare reading of section 99(cc) would reveal that it has been couched in a very simple and plain language and thus no scholarly interpretation is called for. It is well-settled by now that "when the language of the statute is not only plain but admits of one meaning, the task of interpretation can hardly be said to arise. It is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation. Such language best declare without more, the intention of the law givers, and is decisive of it. The rule of construction is "to intend the Legislature to have meant what they have actually expressed". It matters not, in such a case, what the consequences may be. Therefore, if the meaning of the language used in a statute is unambiguous and is in accord with justice and convenience, the Court cannot busy themselves with supposed intentions, however admirable the same may be, because, in that event they would be travelling beyond their province and legislating for themselves. But if the context of the provision itself shows that the meaning intended was somewhat less than the words plainly seem to mean then the Court must interpret that language in accordance with the indication of the intention of the Legislature so plainly given." (Abdul Hameed v. Municipal Committee PLD 1973 Lah. 339, Shah Jahan Begum v. Baloch PLD 1975 Lah. 390).
We are conscious of the fact that "the Courts should avoid a construction which renders any provision meaningless or inoperative and must lean in favour of a construction which will render every word operative rather than one which may make some words idle and nugatory. It is a corollary to the general rule of literal construction that nothing is to be added to or to be taken from a statute, unless there are -similar adequate grounds to justify the inference that the Legislature intended something which it omitted to express. If literal construction leads to absurdity and the words are susceptible of another meaning the Court may adopt the same. But, if no such alternative construction is possible the Court must adopt the ordinary rule of literal interpretation."
Begum Shamsunnehar v. The Speaker, East Pakistan Provincial Assembly .PLD 1965 SC 120, Fazlul Quader Chowdhry v. Muhammad Abdul Hague PLD 1963 Sc 486, A.M. Khan Leghari v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1967 Lah. 227, Yusuf Ali v. Province of East Pakistan PLD 1958 Dacca 138.
9. On the touchstone of the criterion as mentioned herein above we, are not persuaded to agree with Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned Sr. Advocate Supreme Court that the only qualification to contest election is a Bachelor's Degree in any discipline as the said argument has been made in oblivion of the fact that the controversy does net revolve around equivalence and the real controversy to be set at naught would be as to whether Bachelor's Degree on the basis whereof election was contested is a fake/forged or it was ever issued or otherwise and recognized one by the Higher Education Commission. The provisions as enumerated in Article 8-A of the Conduct of General Elections Order, 2002 are not redundant and cannot be ignored. It may not be out of place to mention here that the question of recognition of a degree is equally important because the degree which is not recognized by the Higher Education Commission would be worthless like a piece of paper, cannot be equated to that of a "Degree" because every degree is subject to recognition which provides sanctity to a degree. (Muhammad Nasir Mahmood and another v.
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law Justice and Human Rights Division Islamabad, C.P. No,1 of 2008, Sana Ullah Khan v. District Returning Officer PLD 2005 SC 858, Maulana Abdullah v. Returning Officer and others 2003 SCMR 195, Munir Ahmed v. Returning Officer 2008 CLC 1111, Rao Tariq Mehmood v. Election Commission of Pakistan PLD 2003 Lah. 165). A "degree" which is not recognized by the Higher Education Commission cannot be declared as a valid "degree".
10. The words "Bachelor's Degree" as used in section 99(cc) would mean a degree which is valid one and recognized by the Higher Education Commission. The question of recognition does fall within the jurisdictional domain of Higher Education Commission. In our view validation of a degree depends upon its recognition. The Higher Education Commission would not be an alien entity in such like matters as argued by Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned Sr. Advocate Supreme Court because certain powers have been conferred upon it under section 10 of the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002 which are reproduced herein below for ready reference:-- "(10) Power and functions of the commission.-(1) For the evaluation, improvement, and promotion of higher education, research and development. The Commission may-
(b) cause evaluation of the performance of institutions;
(d) prescribe conditions under which institutions, includihg those that are not part of the State educational system, may be opened and operated;
(f) advise the Federal Government and the Provincial Government on proposals for granting a charter to award degrees in both public and private sector;
(o) determine the equivalence and recognition of degrees, displomas and certificate awarded by Institutions within the country and aboard "
11. A bare reading of section 10(o) would make it abundant clear that the Commission may determine the equivalence and recognition of degrees, diplomas and certificates awarded not only by the institutions within the country but as well as the institutions functioning aboard. We are not impressed by the contention of Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned Sr. Advocate Supreme Court that Higher Education Commission has nothing to do with such matters for the simple reason that section 10(o) of the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002 has been examined on various occasions and the contention as mentioned above was not considered at all and Commission was found competent to determine the equivalence and recognition of degrees and diplomas. In this regard reference can be made to case titled Sanaullah Khan v. District Returning Officer (PLD 2005 SC 858), relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- "04) The Act of 1974 row has been repealed by the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002 (herein after referred to as "the Ordinance, 2002"). Its section 22 subsection (2) has provided safeguards to everything done or action taken under the repealed Act of 1974. As a result thereof, all the notifications referred to hereinhefore have been saved. Besides, section t0(o) or the Ordinance. 2002 confers functions upon the Commission to determine the equivalence and recognition of the degrees, diplomas and certificates, awarded by Institutions within the country and abroad. Thus, it is manifest that subject to passing examination of two additional subjects and newly-introduced subjects of Elective Pakistan Studies and Islamic Studies at the B.A. Level, "Sanad" of Shahadat-ul-Alamia obtained by the students from Wafaq/Tanzeem-ul-Madarris and individual institutions, duly recognized by the UGC could be used for employment purpose other than teaching and without passing examination at B.A. Level from a university in four subjects noted above, these "Sanads" if issued by recognized institution by UGC/HEC, could be used for teaching purposes and for Higher Education only.
15. It may also be noted that the prospectus of one of the recognized "Deeni Madaris" i,e, Jamia Ashrafia (Ashrafia. Islamic University,) Lahore indicates that the "Sanads" of Shahadat-ulAalia and Shahadat-ul-Aalimia have been shown to be equal degree of Graduation and Master whereas a degree can only be granted by a University established by the Government itself, thus, any degree granted by a private University, which is not recognized by the Government, is not acceptable.
Reference in this behalf may be made to Azeezbasha v. Union of India (AIR 1938 SC 622). Relevant para therefrom reads as under thus:--- "(21) Before we do so we should like to say that the words "educational institutions" are of very wide import and would include a university also. This was not disputed on behalf of the Union of India and therefore it may be accepted that a religious minority had the right to establish a university under Article 30(1). The position with respect to the establishment of Universities before the Constitution came into force in 1950 was this. There was no law in India which prohibited any private individual or body from establishing a university and it was therefore, open to a private individual or body to establish a university. There is a good deal in common between educational institutions which are not universities and those which are universities. Both teach students and both have teachers for the purpose. But what distinguishes a university from any other educational institution is that a university grants decrees of its own while other educational institutions cannot.
It is this granting of degrees by a university which distinguishes it from the ordinary run of educational institutions. See St. David's College, Lampeter v. Ministry of Education, 1951-1 All ER 559.
Thus in law in India there was no prohibition against establishment of universities by private individuals or bodies and if any university was so established it must of necessity be granting degrees before it could be called a university. But though such a university might be granting degrees it did not follow that the Government of the country was bound to recognize those degrees. As a matter of fact as the law stood up to the time the Constitution came into force, the Government was not bound to recognize degrees of universities established by private individuals or bodies and generally speaking the Government only recognized degrees of universities established by it by law. No private individual or body could before 1950 insist that the degrees of any university established by him or it must be recognized by Government. Such recognition depended upon the will of Government generally expressed through statute. The importance of the recognition of Government in matters of this kind cannot be minimized. This position continued even after the Constitution came into force. It only in 1956 that by subsection (1) of section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act (No,3 of 1956), it was laid down that-- "the right of conferring or granting degrees shall be exercised only by University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an institution deemed to be a University under section 3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees."
' Subjection (2) hereof further provided that:- "save as provided in subsection (1), no person or authority shall confer, or grant, or hold himself or itself as entitled to confer or grant any degree."
' Section 23 further prohibited the use of the word "university" by an educational institution unless it is established by law. It was only thereafter that no private individual or body could grant a degree in India. Therefore it was possible for the Muslim minority to establish a university before the Constitution came into force, though the degrees conferred by such a university were not bound to be recognized by Government."
' In view of above principle, it is held that a degree, if issued by an institution other than a recognized university by the Government is not acceptable. Reference may be made to section 4(c) of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973 for precedent."
' The above conclusion also finds support by the following judgments:- ' Muhammad Younas v. D.R.O. Writ Petition No, 14073 of 2005, Maulana Abdullah v. Returning Officer and others (2003 SCMR 195), Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edn., Government of Punjab v. Naila Begum (PLD 1987 Lah. 336), Oxford Dictionary, and Azeezbasha v. Union of India (AIR 1968 SC 662)
12. Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned Sr. Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of appellant has also argued that the learned Election Tribunal has misconstrued and misread the evidence which has come on record. In order to appreciate the above contention we have perused the entire evidence once again with the eminent assistance of learned counsel for the parties. The statement of Mr. Muhammad Javed Khan, Director General, Higher Education commission (P.W.1) has been examined, relevant portion whereof is reproduce herein below for ready reference:-- "Under law, the Higher Education Commission is empowered under section 10(1) and clauses b,d,e,f and o to guide Provincial and Federal Government (1) establishment of University (2) the cost of violation of University/institution if there is any doubt (3) to determine equivalence and recognition of degrees, and (4) prescribe conditions under which institutions including those, which are not part of said Education System and may be opened and operated; that without consulting these clauses Provincial Government established University of East Haiderabad and the University would be without consent of Higher Education Commissioner due to this reason and the degrees were not being recognized by Higher Education Commission. We contacted the Provincial Government to provide us an opportunity to verify physical and academic infrastructure of the said University.
Higher Education Commission had written a letter for verification of degree of Haji Nasir Mehmood and the Registrar conveyed to us that it cannot be verified because the record had been destroyed due to floods. Sindh Government started inspection and the Report of Higher Education Commission is that University of East Haiderabad was involved in issuing degrees to non bona fides students."
13. A careful perusal of the above reproduced portion of the statement got recorded by Mr. Muhammad Javed Khan, Director General, Higher Education Commission (P.W.1) would reveal that the University of East was established in violation of section 10 of the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002 by the Provincial Government of Sindh without having consent of Higher Education Commission and therefore, the degrees of the said University were not recognized. He has also clarified that Higher Education Commission sought verification of the degree of appellant but needful could not be done by the University due to non-availability of record which was destroyed due to flood. Mr. Muhammad Javed Khan, Director General, Higher Education Commission (P.W.1) has further stated that it was reported by the Higher Education Commission that University of East was involved in issuing degrees to non- bona fide students. Mr. Muhammad Javed Khan, Director General, Higher Education Commission (P.W.1) was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing advantageous could be elicited and while answering one of the questions he made it clear that "the University was inspected in May, 2008 and we were not satisfied till now that the university was meeting minimum criteria. It is correct that a letter was issued by HEC on 16-3-2003 that the University of East Hayderabad was transferred to category "Z" to "ZY", voluntarily states that "Z" is for the universities which had no infrastructure except charter and "Y" defines the universities which have seriously deficiency in making the standard requirement of HEC. It is correct that the degrees of universities of "Y" category are valid." Much stress has been laid down by Mr. Akram Sheikh, learned Sr. Advocate Supreme Court that the degree of the University of "Y" category is valid as stated by Mr. Muhammad Khan, Director General, Higher Education Commission (P.W.1) and therefore, any further recognition by the Higher Education Commission qua the validity and genuineness of the said degree was not required. We are not persuaded to agree with Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the reason that it hardly matters as to whether the University does fall within a category of "Y" or otherwise because "issuance of degrees" and "validity of degrees" are not synonymous and interchangeable terms.
Validity of degrees is always subject to verification which could only be made on the basis of record which, according to Imtiaz Sheikh (P.W.2) Registrar of the University was not available. Even for the sake of arguments if it is admitted that degree was issued even then the question was as to whether the same was genuine or otherwise keeping in view the serious allegation levelled against the University of East that degrees were issued to non-bona fide students. It seems quite inevitable to examine the genuineness and validity of the degree in question because university remained involved in issuance of degree to the non-bona fide students as mentioned in Exh.PA which has been discussed in a later portion of this judgment. It may not be out of place to mention here that genuineness cannot be ascertained in vacuum and there must be some base for making verification which at all was not available in this case. The case law cited by Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned Sr. Advocate Supreme Court being distinguishable hardly renders any assistance to the case of appellant.
14. We have kept the evidence led by the respondent in juxtaposition. Qazi Abid Iqbal, Attestation Officer (R.W.1) was produced by whom it is stated that the degree (Exh.DA) was issued by the University of East Hyderabad, Pakistan which. Was attested by him on 12-9-2008 along with all transcripts (Exh.DA/1-4). It is also stated that University of East Hyderabad is a recognized University by the Higher Education Commission. He was subjected to cross-examination and while answering one of the questions during cross-examination, he admitted that letter (Exh.P-A) was issued by the Higher Education Commission on 30-10-2007 to the effect that the University of East, Hyderabad was not recognized by Higher Education Commission and its degree/diploma was not to be validated/recognized. He, however, refuted the suggestion that degree (Exh.DA) and the annexed transcripts (Exh.DA/1-4) were not the genuine one. It, however, transpired from the scrutiny of his statement that University of East Hyderabad was informed by means of letter (Exh. PA) by the Higher Education Commission that the University of East Hyderabad was not recognized by Higher Education Commission and its degrees/displomas were not validated or recognized. We have no doubt in our mind that merely on the basis of attestation, a degree cannot be declared as genuine.
We have also minutely perused the contents of letter of Higher Education Commission dated 30th October, 2007 (Exh.PA) which is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-- "Higher Education Commission ' Sector H-9, Islamabad ' Director General ' Accreditation and Attestation ' No,16-59/HEC/A&A/2007/1831 ' October 30, 2007 ' Lt. Col. (R) Ch. Iqbal Ahmed, Director, ' University of EAST, ' 640-B, Latifabad, Hyderabad.
' Subject: RECOGNITION OF DEGREES/DIPLOMAS ' Dear Sir, ' The University of EAST, Hyderabad was established by Government of Sindh (vide Act No,XI of 2004 dated July 28, 2004), in negation to clear instructions contained in the Cabinet Criteria and the Chancellors' Committee meetings. Despite this, the Higher Education Commission contacted the management of the University for physical verification of infrastructure but the university declined the visits of HEC inspection Committee on one pretext or the other.
' Later on August 20, 2007, a team of senior academicians visited the university under aegis of Charter Inspection and Evaluation Committee (CIEC)-a sister organization of the HEC working in Government of Sindh. The CIEC while concluding its recommendations put forward serious discrepancies/short comings in the administrative and academic functioning of the university.
(Emphasis provided)
' The Higher Education Commission taking note of the recommendations put up by the CIEC and refusal of the university to offer itself for inspection, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under its Ordinance LIII of 2002, section 10(1) clause (o) has decided NOT to validate/recognize the degrees, diplomas certificates awarded by the University of EAST, Hyderabad until and unless the university offers itself for inspection and meets the minimum standards set out in the Cabinet Criteria. (Emphasis provided)
' Yours faithfully (Sd.)
(Muhammad Javed Khan)"
15. A bare perusal of the said letter (Exh.PA) would reveal that it was informed to the University of East that pursuant to the provisions as enumerated in section 10(1) clause (o), it was decided not to validate/recognize the degrees, displomas, certificates awarded by the University of East, Hyderabad. In view of such a categoric assertion, the facutm of attestation by Qazi Abid Iqbal, Attestation Officer (R.W.1) would have no substantial bearing on merits of the case and his statement appears to be obliging, concessionary and in violation of letter issued by the Higher Education Commission (Exh.P/A) and it cannot be without consideration for which disciplinary action must be initiated against Qazi Abid Iqbal Attestation Officer of Higher Education Commission (R.W.1) and finalized within a period of two months after completion of all the necessary legal formalities under intimation to this Court.
16. The above mentioned position has further been clarified by the Higher Education Commission as transpired from their comments furnished before this Court (Exh.PB) in C.P.L.A. No,31/2008, relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein below which shows the capability, capacity and affairs of the University of East:- "That while hearing of the titled petition this Hon'ble Court directed the Director General of Accreditation and Attestation Higher Education Commission, Islamabad to appear before this Hon'ble Court on the next date of hearing along with relevant record regarding the recognition or otherwise of the degrees awarded by the University of EAST, Hyderabad. The comments are as under:-- ' The University of EAST, Hyderabad was established by Government of Sindh vide Act No, XI of 2004 dated July, 28, 2004. The University was established in negation to the following decisions of the Chancellor's Committee meeting chaired by the President of Pakistan and attended by the Prime Minister of Pakistan. President AJ&K, Provincial Governors, Chief Ministers and HEC representatives etc., (Emphasis provided)
"2(a) The provinces should follow the criteria laid down by the HEC for establishment of a University/Degree awarding institute. One nominee of the HEC should be placed on the Provincial Charter Recommendation Committee. Proliferation of low-quality universities should be checked for which Provinces should coordinate with the Higher Education Commission (HEC) on this issue.
(c) The Model University Ordinance will be followed in the future (with minor modifications, if necessary) for grant of charter to all new universities established in the public and private sector in all areas of Pakistan." (copy of minutes at annex-1).
' The Higher Education Commission, time and again, contacted the management of the University for Physical Verification of infrastructure in relation to fulfilment of Criteria requirements but the University declined the visits of HEC Inspection Committee on one pretext or the other. Later the Charter Inspection and Evaluation Committee (CIEC) Government of Sindh carried out inspection of University in August 20, 2007 wherein the , CIEC put serious discrepancies/shortcomings in the administrative and academic functioning of the university. (copy of inspection report is at annex- II). (Emphasis provided)
' The Higher Education Commission taking note of the recommendations put up by the CIEC and refusal of the university to offer itself for inspection, exercised powers conferred upon it under its Ordinance LIII of 2002, Section 10(1) clause (o,), and decided not to validate/recognize the degrees, diplomas, certificates awarded by the University of EAST, Hyderabad until and unless the University offers itself for inspection and meets the minimum standards set out in the Cabinet Criteria. The decision was accordingly communicated to University on October, 30, 2007 (copy at annex-III). As such the degrees held from the University of EAST are not validated/recognized by the Higher Education Commission." (Emphasis provided.)
17. The above mentioned comments (Exh.P13) are free from any ambiguity and it was made clear to the University of East that the degrees, diplomas and certificates awarded by the University of East shall not be validated/recognized and the decision was also communicated to the University of East. In view of the letter (Exh.PA) and the above mentioned comments (Exh.PB) the attestation made by Qazi Abid Iqbal, Attestation Officer, Higher Education Commission (R.W.1) carries a little weight and can be ignored safely.
18. We have also examined the Charter, Inspection and Evaluation Committee (CIEC), First Inspection and Monitoring Report of University of Engineering, Arts, Science and Technology (EAST)
Hyderabad, the relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein below which would further clarify the pathetic condition of the University of East:-
(5) During their visit, the CIEC and ESC members made the following major observations:--
(i) The University of East was established in the same premises, which belonged previously to FIMSAT and later Preston University, which were, however, termed illegal and were, therefore, no more existent as a result of the initiative of University of Sindh and action by CIEC. However, Mr. Zafarul Islam, who acted as head of these two institutions in Hyderabad consecutively appeared to have entered into such an arrangement and was now acting as Vice-Chancellor of the new University as a consequence, which appeared to be only in name as he remained for so long outside Pakistan, while in return the premises he managed earlier appeared to have been handed over to the University for its establishment. However, these premises, where the two institutions were already run in the past, provided a reasonable infrastructure consisting of a number of class rooms, a conference room computer laboratories, library, common room, etc. To make a start. The space available was more than required for the students enrolled, presently. These facilities now appeared to be in a process of revival from total abandonment but required rather quicker and much more updating and renovation and bringing them to an order than what was witnessed.
(ii) On the academic side, it was noticed that some lectures of different subjects and disciplines were in progress. At the intervention of the CIEC and ESC members, however, the information received or the answers to the questions obtained from students did not well synchronize with those from the teachers, who were conducting the classes. The arrangement so made appeared to be rather unclear and dubious with regard to genuity of at least some of the academic programs being run, staff appointed, etc. It hence, required more evidence and investigation into the programs legally launched, the students enrolled and faculty appointed. (Emphasis provided)
(iii) It was also noticed that the University had started issuing degrees as soon as it was chartered in 2004 to the students, who were not its bona fide students and/or were the remainants of the two earlier institutions run in these premises. And, therefore, the complaints received regarding issuing of fake degrees appeared to have the substance which was also observed from the agenda for the meeting of the Board of Governors. (Emphasis provided.)
(6) The above observations were again discussed with the management and all others available, who were asked to help the institution to take right course and adopt clean approach in its pursuits. They were asked to see that the institution was out of the malpractices of fake degrees and that it developed the required relationship with University of Sindh. They were assured of all necessary cooperation by the CIEC." (Emphasis provided)
19. The extract of Monitoring report as reproduced hereinabove would indicate that University of East had started issuing degrees as it was chartered in 2004 to the students who were, not its bona fide students and were remainants of the two earlier institutions run in these premises and therefore, the complaints qua issuance of fake degrees were not found without substance. The University was directed in a categoric manner that there should be no malpractices of fake degrees. It also depicts from the Monitoring report that University of East had started issuing degrees in 2004 when it was chartered to those students who were not its bona fide students, as mentioned herein above, which speaks a volume about the conduct of the University.
20. In the light of what has been stated herein above it can be concluded safely that the degree of University of East, Hyderabad cannot be considered as a recognized one for the reasons as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. It is worth mentioning to note that University of East was established on 28-7-2004 but amazingly the certificates relating to 2003 (spring semester) and 2003 (summer semester) were issued when in fact the University was not established which speaks a volume about the negative approach of the University of East. In the same wake of events it has been noted that Haji Nasir Mehmood (appellant) was awarded the degree in March 2006 when the tenure of its course/semester was yet to be completed and the semester, as per record, should have been convened in March 2003. Even on this score the degree issued cannot be declared as a valid one. At the cost of repetition we may mention here that the degree (Exh.DA) was attested on 12-9-2008 but it carries no weight as it could have only been attested on the basis of record which was not made available on baseless excuses. We have no hesitation in our mind that the degree (Exh.DA) produced by the appellant with the nomination papers was not recognized by the Higher Education Commission and accordingly it cannot be equated to that of a valid degree and therefore, he was not qualified under the law to contest the election due to lack of requisite qualifications.
21. In such circumstances how a visionary leadership could be emerged. The matter at hand is more fundamental and involved a crucial issue of trust. Nothing good can be expected from such fakers who not only betrayed the confidence of the voters of their Constituency but cheated them in a shameless manner. How can they watch the legitimate interest of people with a dead conscience which never pricked while defrauding the nation. They deserve exemplary punishment so that such shameful instances could not be repeated. The Election Commission of Pakistan shall initiate criminal proceedings against the appellant under intimation to this Court. The appellant is further directed to return all salaries and allowances received as a Member within two weeks and in case of failure, it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The criminal wastage of tax payer's money cannot be allowed. The burden to prove a valid, genuine and bona fide qualifications lies on the appellant which in this case could not be discharged.
22. The upshot of the above discussion is that the judgment impugned being well based does not warrant interference. The appeal being meritless is accordingly dismissed.