' EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, C.J.---By this single judgment, we propose to decide Writ Petition No,2366 of 2009 and Writ Petition No,1030 of 2010, wherein the petitioners have asked for the issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to treat them in accordance with the dictum rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Baber Elahi and 9 others v. Director of Education, Primary Schools, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 3 others (2000 YLR (Peshawar) 3056, which was also upheld by the Supreme Court, vide judgment rendered in the case of Director of Education and others v. Babar Elahi and other (2007 PLC (C.S.) 157).
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that once it was held by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Baber Elahi and 9 others v. Director of Education Primary Schools, N.-W.F.P. Peshawar and 3 others (Supra) that, all the recognized institutions and the Certificates and Diplomas issued by them are at par with each other, no condition of refresher course could be imposed on any of them for making it equivalent with the other and that imposition of any such condition being violative of the Constitutional provision ensuring equality before law is to be struck down.
3. As against that, the learned D.A.-G appearing on behalf of the respondents in the first instance sought refuge in the judgment rendered in the case of Sarhad University v. Government through Chief Secretary in Writ Petition No,822 of 2008 decided on 17-9-7009 but when realized it is in conflict with a Full Bench judgment of this Court, he could not defend the condition imposed by the Government, vide letter No, SO (B/T) S & L/1-1/2007/ Sarhad University, dated 18-10-2008.
4. We have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. While facing a similar situation, this. Court in the case of Baber Elahi and 9 others v. Director of Education Primary Schools, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 3 others (Supra) held as under:-- "The learned, counsel for the petitioners was of the view that the petitioners have qualified PTC from the recognized Institutions of the country and hence should not be treated with discrimination, being violative of the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution. It is a matter of paramount importance that recognized Institutions in a country must be treated at par with each other failing which the importance of recognition lose the very significance. We believe that the discrimination involved in the instant case, indirectly affects the very incidence of recognition of certain Institutions which are otherwise recognized by the Government as well as by the University Grants Commission."
6. Another paragraph which is relevant for the purpose of this case also merits reproduction and thus runs as under:-- "Last but not the least, the University Grants Commission has categorically ruled through its Equivalence Committee that the degrees, certificates, diplomas issued by the Allama Iqbal Open University are equivalent to all above awarded by all the Universities of Pakistan. The learned A.A-G.
Has not either refuted or contested such certificate on record. No discrimination or policy ultimately leading to discrimination, can be adopted or resorted to and if so done, would clearly be in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution."
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while hearing an appeal in the case of Director of Education and others v. Babar Elahi and others (2007 PLC (C.S.) 157), against the Full Bench judgment of this Court held as under:-- "We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sardar Shaukat Hayat, learned Additional Advocate General, N.-W.F.P. On perusal of the impugned judgment, dated 12-5-2000 rendered by Full Bench of the High Court, we are of the firm view that it does not suffer from any legal infirmity or misconstruction of material facts and the law. Indeed it lays down correct and harmonious interpretation of the provisions contained in Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantee equal treatment before law and equal protection of law to all citizens similarly placed.
' Since all the educational institutions situated within the country are duly recognized by the University Grants Commission and their certificates and diplomas are given equivalence by the said Commission, there is no warrant for discriminating the candidates qualifying from Institutions other than Elementary PTC, Colleges managed and controlled by the Government of N.-W.F.P.
Reference may be made to Oliver Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 347 U.S. 483,349 U 294, Sharin Munir v. Government of Punjab PLD 1990 SC 95 and Attiyya Bibi Khan v. Federation of Pakistan 2001 SCMR 1161. For these reasons, Appeal No,1903 of 2000 preferred by the Government of N.-W.F.P. Stands dismissed."
8. Once a Full Bench of this Court upheld that all the Institutions of the country and the Certificates or Diplomas issued by them are at par with each other, we do not think, the Government could impose any condition of a refresher course on any one of them for making it equivalent with the other. The condition, thus, imposed vide letter mentioned above, being violative of the declared law of the land has to be set at naught. The judgment cited by the learned D.A.G. Would be of no value, when it being in conflict with a Full Bench judgment of this Court and that of the apex Court has no force altogether. Even otherwise, when all the judgments given earlier are binding on all the subsequent Benches of equal number of Judges, none can afford to disagree with or dissent from the former without referring the matter to a larger Bench. This is what was held in the cases of The Province of East Pakistan v. Dr. Azizul Islam (PLD 1963 Supreme Court 296) and Ardeshir Cowsajee and 10 others v. Karachi Building Control Authority (KMC), Karachi and 4 others (1999 SCMR 2883) and this is what is reiterated by us today.
9. Having thus considered in this backdrop, we cannot take a different view and thus issue the writ asked for. These writ petitions are thus disposed of.