IJAZ AHMAD, J. --- This single judgment will dispose of I.C.As. No. 155/2010 titled Federal Urdu University Vs. Pakistan Bar Council etc. To 175/2010, I.C.As. No. 180/2010 to 196/2010, I.C.A. No. 202/2010 and I.C.A. No. 203/2010 and Writ Petitions No. 3065/2006 titled Al-Mizan Law College Vs. Pakistan Bar Council etc., 3305/2009 titled Raja Muhammad Qasim Vs. Pakistan Bar Council etc., 2363/2009 titled Shazia Sultana Vs. Pakistan Bar Council etc., 2358/2009 titled Abid Hussain Vs. Pakistan Bar Council etc., 2401/2008 titled Saqib Ali etc. Vs/ Pakistan Bar Council etc., 2401/2008 titled Saqib Ali etc. Vs. Pakistan Bar Council etc., 2122/2010 titled Tariq Mehmood Vs. Pakistan Bar Council etc., 2384/2009 titled Ayaz Mehmood Vs. Pakistan Bar Council etc. 4764/2010 titled Raja Muhammad Ghaffar Vs. Pakistan Bar Council etc., 2185/2010 titled Raja Muhammad Iftikhar Vs. Pakistan Bar Council etc., 2362/2009 titled Tariq Samad Vs. Pakistan Bar Council etc., 3280/2006 titled Jinnah Muslim College Vs. Pakistan Bar Council etc., 2416/2008 titled Zahid Akhtar Satti etc. Vs. Pakistan Bar Council etc., 2356/2009 titled Naeem Ahmad Vs. Pakistan Bar Council etc., 2417/2010 titled Shamshair Hthder Vs. Pakistan Bar Council etc., 5162/2010 titled Malik Muhammad Masood Vs. Pakistan Bar Council etc., 5124/2010 titled Shahid Sharafat etc. Vs. Pakistan Bar Council etc., and 3937/2010 titled Shafique-ur-Rehman's Vs. Pakistan Bar Council etc., as all these cases involve common questions of law and have similar facts.
2. Some of the petitions have been instituted by the institutions/Universities which claim the authority to affiliate and de-affiliate the other Colleges/Institutions, establish any number of campuses and issue the degrees in the discipline of law as they are recognized as such by the Higher Education Commission (H.E.C.) which has the authority to recognize the universities and determine the equivalence of the degrees. Such is the I.C.A. No. 155/2010, preferred by the Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology, Islamabad (FUU), impugning order dated 8.7.2010, passed in W.P. No. 2410 of 2008, wherein it was prayed that for the above-said reasons, the Pakistan Bar Council be restrained from causing, interference into its statutory functions. This will be heated as Category-I.
3. Some petitions are instituted by those Colleges/Institutions that impart the legal education and claim this right on account of being affiliated with some universities recognized by the Higher Education Commission (H.E.C.). Writ Petition No. 3065 of 2006 has been instituted by Al-Mizan Law College which claims to be running its campus in Satellite Town, Rawalpindi, since 2003 after obtaining its formal affiliation from Federal Urdu University, Islamabad in pursuance of the observing of the codal formalities, vide letter No. Dak/3300/2003, dated 29.8.2003. It claims its right to impart the education in the discipline of law as an affiliated institution and is aggrieved by the refusal of the Punjab Bar Council to enroll its students as Advocates. W.P. No. 3280 of 2006 has been instituted by Jinnah Muslim Law College, Islamabad. It claims its affiliation with Islamia University, Bahawalpur, and has, in its credit, the imparting of education from the year 2003 and is aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents to enroll its students as Advocates. Both these petitions will fall under Category-II.
4. Some petitions have been instituted by the students who have been studying in the institutions in question and whose degrees are not being recognized by the Punjab or Pakistan Bar Council for being admitted to the profession. This is the case in Writ Petitions Nos. 5162/2010, 3937/10, 5124/10, 2417/10, 2185/10 and 4764/10 and in the ICAs Nos. 168, 169, 170, 183, 184 and 186 of 2010, preferred by those who have received education from those institutions which claim their affiliation with Federal Urdu University, Islamabad, and have been refused the issuance of Intimation Forms for enrolment as Advocates by the Punjab Bar Council Writ Petitions Nos. 2401/08, 2122/10, 2384/09 and 3263/09 have been instituted by those who have either passed LL.B. Examination and obtained a degree from the University of Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJK) or studied at Kashmir Law College affiliated with University of AJK and obtained degrees from the said University. They are aggrieved by the refusal of Punjab Bar Council to enroll them as Advocates. These cases shall be termed as Category-Ill.
5. Some other petitions were moved by those who had acquired their Law degrees from the disputed institutions, they were allowed admission to the profession and were awarded the licences as Advocates of the lower Courts, but their cases for enrolment as Advocates of High Court were turned down. ICAs{{TABLE}} Nos. 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 180, 181, 182, 185, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 202 and 203 of 2010 arise out of such writ petitions . These cases fall under Category-IV.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in I.C.A. No. 155/2010 that the composite order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 2410 of 2008 alongwith numerous other petitions is the product of a glaring misconception. All the petitions did not carry similar or identical prayer. The appellant's petition could not be dismissed on account of failure to avail an alternate remedy which could be the case of other petitioners who were refused the enrolment. It is argued that Federal Urdu University (F.U.U.) is a creation of the Federal Urdu University Ordinance No. CXIX of 2002: As per subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Ordinance ibid, it was established to impart education in Arts, Science and Technology and the University could establish any number of campuses. The University has the power to affiliate and de-affiliate the Institutions. The Higher Education Commission Ordinance LIII of 2002 has been promulgated in order to improve and promote the higher education in country. Under Section 10 "0" of this Ordinance, the Commission has the power to determine the equivalence of the degrees awarded by the institutions within the country or abroad. Under Section 10(f) of the Ordinance, the Commission may advise the Government on proposals for granting a charter to award degrees in both, public and private sectors. This Ordinance overrides the other laws. It is argued that the Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils (LP&BC) Act, 1973, which is earlier in time, is overridden by the said Ordinance. Anything to the contrary contained in any law including the above-said Act looses its legal value. The Pakistan Bar Council has limited powers to exercise and functions to perform, in order to promote the legal education and prescribe its standards. Under sub-section (q) of Section 55 of the said Act, the Pakistan Bar Council may rules including the rules regarding legal education to be observed by the Universities. Under rule 2(c) of the Pakistan Bar Council Legal Education Rules, 1979, "University" means University established by law in Pakistan and having a faculty of law. Similar is the definition of 'University under the sub-section "m" of Section 2 of the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002. By reference to this definition of University, it is contended that the University AJ K, Muzaffarabad and Federal Urdu University, Islamabad, b th having the faculty of law are the Universities as defi ed under the LP&BC Act, 1973. The degrees and diplo mas issued by the said Universities and recognized as being valid by the Higher Education Commission do not req ire a counter-signature and second recognition from the P akistan Bar Council. Reliance is placed on PLD 2007 SC 3 94 titled "Pakistan Bar Council Vs. Federal Government an d others" and "2010 YLR 3144 titled "Munir Akhtar Awan a nd others Vs. Khalid Manoor and others". Under Clause ( )(III) sub- section (1) of Section 26 of the LP&BC Act, 197 3., a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an Advocat e if he has a bachelors degree in law from a University I Pakistan or outside Pakistan recognized by Pakistan Ba r Council and; . Under clause (d) has undergone such cours of training and passed such examination after the train ing as may be prescribed by the Pakistan Bar Council.
Bus it is argued that all those who have got the said education and the training are entitled to be admitted as Adv ocates.
7. On behalf of respondent H EC, it is argued that under the Ordinance LIII of 2002, it has the power to determine the equivalence of the educational degrees awarded by the Universities and g rant recognition to the institutions. It is further argued that t he learned Single Judge has committed error while deciding all the petitions through a single judgment dated 8.7.201 0 passed in W.P. No. 3737/2009 wherein reliance was placed upon the judgment dated 22.2.2010 passed in W .P. No. 16271/2010. This petition and many other clubbe d petitions, were filed by the petitioners who were seeking nrolment as Advocates.
8. The arguments advanced by Federal Urdu University are adopted by the Al-Mizan Law College. It is further added that the College claiming its inception from the year 2003 was granted affiliation by Federal Urdu University after observing all the codal formalities vide order dated 29.8.2003 (Annexure "A" in W.P. No. 3065/2006).
The Punjab. Bar Council had no authority to refuse the enrolment to its students on the pretext that the LL.B. Degree was issued to its students by Federal Urdu University which was not a recognized University as required under the Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act, 1973. The Pakistan Bar Council (Legal Education) Rules, 1978 and any other Rules, framed by Pakistan Bar Council may be read in the rules framed by any of the recognized universities in Pakistan. The powers of Pakistan Bar Council cannot be stretched beyond the circumference of law. On behalf of all the students who qualified from University of AJK, Muzaffarabad or from Kashmir Law College affiliated with the said. University and on behalf of students of Jinnah Muslim Law College affiliated with Islamia University, Bahawalpur, it is argued that said Universities are recognized by HEC and that the syllabi of both the Universities are identical to that of the University of Punjab and that earlier, those having studied at Kashmir Law 'College and having obtained their degrees from University of AJK were enrolled as Advocates by the Punjab Bar Council. The case of present petitioners seeking enrolment is at par with those having already been enrolled as Advocates.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No. 2362/2009 titled Tariq Samad Vs. Pakistan Bar Council presses C.M. No. 1765. In that case, the Secretary Pakistan Bar Council appeared before the Court on 17.5.2010 and stated that the Council had recognized the University of AJK in the year 2008. The petitioner who had passed his LL.B. Examination in the year 2009, qualified to be issued the licence to practice as an Advocate. In view of said statement, the petition having borne fruit, was disposed of vide order dated 17.5.2010. It is prayed and reiterated that in the order, the year 2009 should be read as 2005 as the petitioners had, in fact, passed LL.B.
Degree in the year 2005.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Pakistan Bar Council contends that W.P. No. 3065/06 instituted on behalf of Al-Mizan Law College is not maintainable as the College has wrongly claimed, having been affiliated vide letter dated 29.8.2003 (Annexure "A" in W.P. No. 3065/2006). By no stretch of imagination can it be termed as an affiliation letter and that it was recognized by Pakistan Bar Council only on 1.7.2008. As the College at the time of institution of the petition was neither affiliated with any university nor the Federal Urdu University was recognized by the Pakistan Bar Council so it was, not at that time, a legal person having locus standi to submit the writ petition. Reliance is placed on PLD 1973 Lahore 500 titled "Anjuman Araian Bhera Vs. Abdul Rashid and 5 others". It is further argued that being cognizant of the said facts the college tried to be smart enough to include some of its students who were seeking enrolment as Advocates, as petitioners in the amended petition. Said petition on behalf of those students is also not maintainable as the petition embodied the prayer for setting aside certain orders relating to the refusal of recognition of the University by the Pakistan Bar Council and for allowing its students to compete in entry test. Such a prayer could not be made by the students. The including of students as petitioners without making necessary amendments in the body of petition and the prayer therein will not lend any augmentation to the petition otherwise lacking the maintainability.
11. Addressing on the other points, it is argued that the appellants in ICA No. 155 of 2010 and the petitioners colleges in Writ Petitions Nos. 328 of 2006 and 3065 of 2006, on the one hand, seek their recognition from Pakistan Bar Council as institutions having been affiliated with the recognized Universities. On the other hand, they challenge the authority of the respondent-Pakistan Bar Counsel to grant the recognition to the Universities and to determine the equivalence of their degrees. They cannot approbate and reprobate simultaneously: that the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, has been enacted to regulate the affairs relating to the Legal Practitioners and the Bar Councils and to promote the legal education and prescribe its standards and provide for certain incidental and ancillary matters as the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975, has been enacted for regulation of engineering profession and the Medical Council Ordinance, 1962, has been promulgated for consolidation of laws relating to the registration of the medical practitioners and dentists and to establish the uniform standards of basic and higher education in Medicine and Dentistry. The purposes of legislation in all the three spheres are identical or similar to each other; even after having acquired LL.B., degrees from those institutions which are affiliated with the Universities recognized by the HEC or even from such Universities, the recognition by the Pakistan Bar Council of such Universities is yet another requirement for allowing the admittance of the students to the profession of law. The Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 has been given the overriding effect by addition of Section 1A by amendment Act No. XII of 2005 to the Act, which is, later in time, to HEC Ordinance, 2002, therefore, the provisions of the Act will be given effect to notwithstanding anything contrary contained in the Ordinance. Reference is made to PLJ 2002 Lahore 319, titled "Shahid Mehmood etc. Vs. Pakistan Bar Council and others", PLD 1996 SC 182, titled "Muhammad Sadiq and others Vs. University of Sindh and another'', PLD 2007 SC 323, titled "Pakistan Medical & Dental Council Vs. Ziauddin Medical University and others and PLD 2003 SC 488, titled "Muhammad Yunus and others Vs. Ministry of Water & Power. Lahore and others". It is further argued that in spite of the absence of the affiliation of the colleges/Institutions with the Universities initially recognized by HEC and finally by the Pakistan Bar Council, the said institutions kept on admitting the students in the discipline law and continued the money minting. They were cognizant of the fact that the students studying law in their Institutions were being refused the admittance by the Pakistan Bar Council as Advocates. It is further argued that even if the degree in a certain discipline is validly issued by a University and recognized as such by the HEC, the same would not unquestionably entitle the holder to admittance to the profession of law. The Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, The Punjab Bar Council Legal Practitioners Rules, 1973, Pakistan Bar Council Recognitions of Universities Rules, 2002, and the Pakistan Bar Council Legal Education Rules, 1978, have laid down the law and procedure for affiliation of the law colleges, equivalence of the degrees and admittance of the candidates to the profession of law. While attending the question relating to the 'students who have already got education from the Institutions in question, he argues that the students were well aware about the non-affiliation of those colleges, the non-recognition of those Universities and of the degrees issued by them and the continuous refusal by the Bar Councils to admit their students and their degree holders to the profession, therefore, those who opted for taking admissions in those institutions have chosen a blind alley for themselves and deserve no leniency. The same, according to him, is the case of those who although were admitted by the Punjab Bar Council as Advocates of the lower Courts yet have been refused enrolment as Advocates of High Court.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record and the relevant law.
13. We would like to take up first, the case of the Universities (Category-I). The Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology, Islamabad is a creation of the FUU Ordinance CXIX of 2002. Section 4 of the said Ordinance provides the powers and purposes of the University. According to the Paragraphs XIII, XIV and XV of the said section the University had the power to confer degrees, affiliate and de-affiliate educational Institutions and to inspect colleges affiliated or seeking affiliation. Al-Khair University of the AJK is also the creation of the Act XXVIII of 1994. The University of AJK has been established under the University of AJK Act XXXIV of 1985. Both the last mentioned Acts provide for the similar functions and powers to their Universities as is done by the Federal Urdu University Act of 2002 in case of its creation. All the three Universities are recognized by the Higher Education Commission. Now the question arises whether the students having received education from those three Universities or from the Institutions/Colleges affiliated with those Universities and equipped with the degrees issued by those Universities would have an unfettered right to walk into the Provincial Bar Councils for being admitted to the profession of law. The Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 and the Rules made thereunder will have to be thrashed out. The guidance will also be sought from Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975 and the Medical Council Ordinance, 1962. All the said Acts have been passed and the Ordinance promulgated in order to make provisions for regulation of the respective professions. Their respective Councils have the powers for recognition of the qualifications in the respective, fields and for laying down the standards of education etc. AlKhair University, the University of AJK, the Federal Urdu University, Islamabad and Islamia University, Bahawalpur, enjoy recognition as Universities by the HEC. They may validly issue the, degrees in all the fields of knowledge which are imparted therein and in the colleges affiliated with them. The admittance into the profession to the persons holding degrees of these Universities is another question. A person, though holding a degree from such a University, if has not undergone a course or training as is stipulated under Section 26(i)(d) of LP&BC Act, 1973; or, has not paid the fee under Section 26(i)(e); or, is disqualified under Clauses (i), (ii) and (i.e) of sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Act, shall not be admitted into the profession and even if having been admitted, he may be removed from the roll of the. Advocates, if his continuation on the roll under sub-section (3) is not in the interest of the legal profession. The Pakistan Bar Council Legal Education Rules, 1978, Pakistan Bar Council (Recognition of University) Rules, 2002, affiliation of law college and affiliation of law college rules further streamline and regulate the entry into the profession. In the case cited as PLJ 2002 Lahore 319, the petitioners therein had challenged the resolution dated 30.6.2001, passed by the Pakistan Bar Council whereby it was decided that any person who had obtained degree from AI-Khair University may be given an opportunity to appear in the examination comprising of two papers, the CPC and Cr.P.C. This Court, being cautious of recession in intellect and professional skills and the justice being the ultimate sufferer of the decay appreciated, the emphasis laid by the Pakistan Bar Council for improving and maintaining the standard of the profession. Now the Bar Councils have introduced the entry test system and have also set the minimum age limit for entering into the profession. All these conditions laid down and the rules made are only an effort to regulate the entry into the profession and cannot be termed to be a Total Embargo, therefore, are permissible under the law and the Constitution. In PLD 2007 SC 323 titled "Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Vs. Ziauddin Medical University and others", the,,powers and functions of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council regarding the recognition of the Institutions were in question. Although the expression of recognition of training institutions is not expressly used in the Medical Council Ordinance, 1962, yet this power was held to be attributed to the Council as a result of combined reading of various sections of the Ordinance. In the case of entry into the legal profession, such recognition of the Institutions and determination of equivalence of the degrees has specifically been provided in Pakistan Bar Council (Recognition of Universities) Rules, 2002, and affiliation of Law College Rules. In PLD 1996 SC 182 titled "Muhammad Sadiq and others Vs. University of Sindh and another" the matter was regarding the recognition of the degrees and diplomas, which was refused by the Pakistan Engineering Council. The Reverable Lordships in the august Supreme Court of Pakistan were of the view that the right of recognition of engineering qualification was a matter between the engineering institutions and Pakistan Engineering Councils. In the cases reported as PLD 2007 SC 323 titled "Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Vs. Ziauddin Medical University and others" and 2001 YLR 1942 titled "Institution of Engineering Pakistan. Engineering Centre, Gulberg 111, Lahore Vs. Pakistan Engineering Council through Engineer Major General (Retd.) Javed Anwar Hashmi, Registrar, PEC and three.Others" their Lordships have upheld the right of the respective councils to grant or refuse the recognition of the qualifications. In PLD 2003 SC 488 titled "Muhammad Yunus and Sons Vs. Ministry of Water & Power, Lahore and others", the matter was a bit different but still was relating to the powers of Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975.
14. In our view, the right of every citizen of Pakistan under Article 18 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to enter into any lawful profession or occupation and to conduct any lawful business is not unfettered and absolute.
It is conditioned and circumscribed with the authority of the State to regulate the same by a licensing system or to regulate it in the interest of the free competition; and carrying on by the Federal Government or a Provincial Government or by a corporation controlled by any such Government, of any trade, business, industry or service, to the exclusion complete or partial, of other persons. Thus, the liberty or the right to do something, even if legal, cannot be understood in its absolute term. It should be regarded as the residual liberties and rights after minusing the regulations and restrictions imposed under law. Such are the restrictions, which are imposed by the Pakistan Bar Council through the Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act, 1973 and the various Rules made under it. Section 55 of the Act authorizes Pakistan Bar Council to make rules. The Universities have the right to set a criteria for granting admission to the students to its various disciplines setting the age limit, prohibiting the admission to more than one disciplines simultaneously, also prohibiting admission to one discipline after passing examination in the other. The Universities now cannot demand uncontrolled and unchecked admittance to its students in the profession of law by the Pakistan and Provincial Bar Councils. The said councils have a similar right to exercise that the Universities had just a while ago exercised.
The Universities and the Councils should act in collaboration with each other to give the nation an intellectual lot of legal professionals. The Universities should perform the function of a gateway letting the scholars into the councils like the green-blue water flowing from a reservoir into a brook.
They should not try to operate like a flood gate out-letting everything besides a bit of water as well.
The hamlets of wisdom will be inundated. The discipline and intellect will be the torn pages of history if the needed care is not taken by all the institutions.
15. Now we take up the case of the non-affiliated institutions that fall under Category-II. These Institutions imparting the education of law without being affiliated with any University recognized by the Pakistan Bar Council have been minting money and cannot boast of being engaged in a noble profession of education. They have traded in it and have fleeced the student's. These institutions have no case to put in no argument to advance and deserve no, relief. The students who had paid fees to such unaffiliated Institutions have the right to claim the refund of substantial portion of the fees paid by using the good offices and the mediation of the Universities and the HEC.
16. The petitioners in Category-III argue that their applications for enrolment. Under Rule 5(1) of the Punjab Bar Council Legal Practitioners Rules, 1974 should have been placed before an Enrolment Committee. Instead of adopting this course, the Secretary, Bar Council has returned the application, and therefore, committed violation of law. It is argued that remedy of appeal for rejection of admission by the Punjab Bar Council could not be availed in their case as it was not rejected by the enrolment committee of the Punjab Bar Council. It was in fact only returned by the Secretary of the Council, therefore, the rejection of their petition is not in accordance with law.
17. Since numerous petitions and ICAs have been preferred and almost same question of law is involved, therefore, dismissal of petitions on account of failure to avail the alternate remedy will not bring the litigation to an end. Moreover, in the instant case the petitioners' applications were not rejected by the enrolment committee, it were simply returned, therefore, their petitions can be thrown away on account of their failure to avail the remedy of appeal under the Legal Practitioners Bar Councils Act, 1973. However, they are the scholars who opted to receive the education from the Institutions not affiliated with any of the Universities recognized by the Pakistan Bar Council. Since the law relating to the recognition of the Universities, the legal education, the affiliation of the law colleges and entry into the profession is embodied in the Act of 1973, and the rules, therefore, the petitioners of this category, especially, being the students of law and hoping to be admitted to the profession of law were cognizant or at least in all circumstances were supposed to know about the incapability of these colleges to impart the legal education and about the non-recognition of the Universities and their degrees by the Pakistan Bar Council. The litigation on this issue has a recoded history. Thus the disqualification and inability incurred by the colleges and the Universities falls within the definition of notoriety. The candidates having attained education from the unaffiliated colleges have time and again been refused admittance to the profession by the Pakistan Bar Council. The petitioners who themselves chose to be pushed to this blind alley deserve no relief.
18. We would now like to deal with the Category-IV of the cases. They acquired degree from the colleges not affiliated with the University recognized by the Pakistan Bar Council. They were admitted as Advocates of the lower Court by the Punjab Bar Council. At the time when they applied for licence for the High Court, they were refused that. The Bar Council had already exercised its right of refusing or admitting the candidates to the profession. Their degrees wrongly or rightly had been declared valid. They were not attributed the insufficiency of the knowledge of law or being in possession of fake or invalid degree or sufferance of any other disqualification. Authority on this subject that vests in the Punjab Bar Council stands exercised and exhausted. Some of the petitioners might have crossed the upper age limit fixed for employment, some might have foregone the chance to join other professions. The Punjab Bar Council having already exercised its authority, a valuable right having already accrued to those petitioners cannot be withdrawn. The licences having been granted to those petitioners for lower Courts cannot be withdrawn. The licences for practice in the High Court, are granted in continuation of the licence of the lower Courts subject to fulfilment of certain conditions and qualifications. These petitioners are not alleged to be lacking those conditions or qualifications. The case cited as 2010 YLR 3144 titled "Munir Akhtar Awan and others Vs. Khalid Mansoor and others" referred by the petitioners pertains to this category. It is beneficial to those only Who had got admission to Al-Khair University before the Resolution dated 24.3.2001, was passed by the Pakistan Bar Council. It was held therein that after resolution having been passed and publicized those who took the examination after 2001 and obtained LL.B. Degree should not be considered for the purpose of enrolment, as Advocates. The respondent- Punjab Bar Council was directed to grant the petitioners of this Category, the licence for practice as Advocates of the High Court provided they fulfilled the rest of the conditions. This Constitutional petition to their extent stands accepted.
19. In view of our deliberation, all these ICAs and Writ Petitions except Writ Petition No. 3280/2006 titled "Jinnah Muslim College Vs. Pakistan Bar Council etc." and except the appeals/petitions falling in Category No. IV, mentioned in Para-2 of this judgment, which are ICAs{{TABLE}} Nos.
156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 180, 181, 182, 185, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 202 and 203 of 2010, are dismissed .
20. The University for AJK was recognized by the Pakistan Bar Council in the year 2008. The petitioner having passed his LL.B. Examination in the year 2005, cannot be given the benefit of its recognition. Therefore, C.M. No. 1765 filed in W.P. 2362/2009, cannot be acceded to. It is dismissed.
21. The petitioner in Jinnah Muslim Law College, in Writ Petition No. 3280/2009 claims its affiliations With Islamia University, Bahawalpur Which is recognized by Pakistan Bar Council. The affiliation letter is appended as Mark "A" (on the file). It is a provisional affiliation letter dated 5.11.2003 allowing admission of a limited number of 30 students only for the academic Sessions 2003-2004. The admissions for Sessions 2004-2005 were forbidden through the same letter without obtaining fresh affiliation from the University. The provisional affiliation certificate was meant only to facilitate the Institution to give admission and to provide a chance to the students to acquire education and it was to be followed by a permanent affiliation letter which is lacking. In order to save the students who got admission under the impression that the college had been affiliated, this petition is accepted to the extent of 1st 30 students only whether they have passed or failed who got admission to 3 years LL.B. Course of studies for the academic Session 2003-2004.
ICA dismissed/.