SAGHEER AHMED QADRI, J. --- Through this petition under Article .199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 Mukhtar Begum and 3 other petitioners alongwith private respondents Nos. 3 to 193 being candidates of B.Ed. 2nd Annual Examination, 2009 & 1st Annual Examination, 2010 to be, held on September/October, 2010, have challenged the vires of Notice dated 26.7.2010 whereby the University of Punjab according to the Instructions Letter contained in its para 3(a) has asked them to submit their original C.T. Certificates for appearance in the said examination.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners alongwith private respondents Nos. 3 to 193 applied for appearing in the B.Ed. Examination as private candidates and the Controller of Examinations-respondent No. 2 vide instructions letter No. 1612-E, dated 26.2.2001 raised objections mentioned in its paragraphs Nos. 2, 3 and 5; that' main objection is mentioned in paragraph No. 3(a) whereby the petitioners were required to submit original C.T. Certificates whereas attested photocopy was declared unacceptable. Learned counsel while referring Regulation relating to B. Ed. Examination present at page 18 (Annexure-E) of the file with reference to Category-I relating to Regular Candidates and Category-II relating to Trained Male/Female Teachers, has argued that both category of the Candidates in fact falls within one category and as the respondent University did not require C.T. Certificates from the regular candidates but from the candidates including the petitioners as well as respondents Nos. 3 to 193 fall within the category-II (b) who are also required to have 18 months experience of teaching in any Institution established by the Government or registered by the Directorate of Education (Schools), which is discriminatory, violative of the principles of equality as enshrined under Article 25 read with Articles 4' and 8 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; it was further agitated on behalf of the petitioners that even otherwise throughout Pakistan now C.T.
Examination is nowhere being conducted thus the impugned Regulation whereby such critericate is required has become redundant and it cannot be acted upon. Prayed that the above- mentioned notice of Instructions whereby petitioners and respondents No. 3 to 193 are required to submit C.T. Certificates or verified from the concerned Directorate of Education or Boards, is discriminatory treatment to be declared null and void and ineffective upon the rights of the petitioners as well as respondents Nos. 3 to 193. In support of his contention learned counsel relied on I.S. Sharwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and others (1991 S.C.M.R. 1041). Prayed that the writ petition be allowed.
3. On the other hand, learned Legal Advisor for respondent University have vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the grounds that the requirement of submission of C.T. Certificate exists rather from the very beginning as provided under Chapter-I, Part-IX of The Calendar Of University of the Punjab (Volume-II) at pages 473-474.
Learned Legal Advisor further argued that requirements of the original certificate and its verification needed due to the reason that previously fake and forged C.T. Certificates had been submitted by the candidates and when so many cases were detected it was provided that either original certificate be produced or the same be verified from the concerned Board/University.
Learned Legal Advisor further argued that the arguments advanced, by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no C.T. Examination is being conducted anywhere in Pakistan is itself nullified by the fact that petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 4 themselves have annexed C.T. Certificates alongwith the writ petition. Learned counsel submitted material, down loaded from the website of Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad wherein it is clearly mentioned that this facility is even now-a-days available.
It is further agitated that this writ petition even otherwise is not maintainable as the Universities are bound down by their Rules/Regulations. Reliance in this respect is placed on Aqsa Manzoor v.
University of Health Sciences, Lahore through Vice-Chancellor and 3 others (PLD 2006 Lahore 482), Rashid Nawaz and 7 others v. University of the Punjab through Vice-Chancellor, Lahore and 3 others (PLD' 2007 Lahore 78), Muhammad Afzal v. Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan through Vice- Chancellor and 2 others (2007 CLC 1025) and Rana Saeed Ahmad v. The Controller of Examination, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan (1996 SCMR 792). Learned Legal Advisor also relied on the judgment I.S. Sharwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretaty, Finance Division, Islamabad and others (1991 S.C.M.R. 1041) wherein their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan have held that reasonable classifications based' on the intelligible differentia are permissible and are not in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Prayed that this writ petition being not maintainable be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the, parties and perused the record.
5. Para-were comments were submitted by the respondent University in answer, to this petition. Its first part under the heading 'Report' it is submitted as under:- "The petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 to 193 submitted their admission forms for B.Ed.
Examination as private candidates. While filing their admission forms the petitioners and respondents Nos.
3 to 193 were fully aware that as per the rules and regulations available at pages 473 and 474 of the University of .The Punjab Calendar Volume-II they have to produce their C.T. Certificates. As there are a lot of bogus C.T. Certificates being produced by the candidates and many writ petitions have been filed by the private students against the University of the Punjab, the University has asked the private students to get their C.T. Certificates verified.
The petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 to 193 when came to know that they have to get their C.T.
Certificates verified filed the present writ petition, thereby challenging the requirement of C.T.
Certificate for the private students to appear in B.Ed examination.
The C.T. Certificate is not required from the regular students as their respective college verifies that they have studies in the said college for the required period of time. Whereas the private candidates are required to provide the C.T. Certificate so that it could be proved that they have studies in the relevant field for a period of at least one year, which is required for passing the C.T.
Exam.
It is noteworthy that because of the delay in verification of the C.T. Certificates of the candidates the B.Ed. Exams have already been postponed."
6. Admittedly the petitioners as well as respondents Nos. 3 to 193 being candidates of B.Ed.
Examination fall within Category II(b) wherein it mentioned that:---
(b) Any graduate of the University of the Punjab or of any other recognized University (subject to the sanction of the Academic Council) who has passed C.T. Examination of the Directorate of Education (Schools) of a Division in the Punjab or the C.T. Examination of any other Directorate of Education (Schools) of other provinces which is considered at par with the. C.T. Examination of the Directorate of Education (Schools) of the Province of Punjab provided that the C.T. Teachers shall be permitted to appear to the B.Ed. Examination if: (i.e) they have eighteen months experience of teaching in any institution established by the Government or registered by the Directorates of Education (Schools)
7. The basic qualification for these candidates required by the, above-mentioned Regulation is that a candidate should be graduate of the University of Punjab or any other recognized University having C.T. Certificate issued by the Directorate of Education, Province of the Punjab, or any other Directorate of Education. At the same time, these candidates are required to have 18 months experience of teaching in any Institution established by the Government or registered by the Directorates of Education (Schools). The candidates of Category-I are regular candidates who are required to Undergone a one year's course of teacher education for the degree for academic year at a college of education affiliated with the University, therefore, . They do not require any eighteen months experience or C.T. Certificates like Category-II(b) who are the private candidates.
8. The main contest by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that according to objection No. 3(a) vide Instructions Notice dated 26.7.2010 they are required to submit original C.T. Certificates and it was directed that attested photostat copy will not be accepted. The reasons for the above- mentioned restriction have been explained by the learned Legal Advisor to University of the Punjab that previously fake and bogus certificates have been submitted by the candidates due to which standard and criteria as prescribed by the University was day by day decreasing. Learned counsel for the petitioners himself has relied on the judgment cited as I.S. Sharwani and others v.
Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance. Division, Islamabad and others (1991 S.C.M.R.
1041) wherein their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while dealing all these aspects as provided under Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 have described principles with regard to equal protection of law and reasonableness of the classification. Under principle No. (vii) that in order to make a classification reasonable, it should be based:- "(a) on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those who have been left out;
(b) that the differentia must have rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by such classification."
As the classification mentioned above which the learned counsel for the petitioners is agitating as discrimination is clearly falls within reasonable classification and, based on intelligible differentia, therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners are. Without any force. Even otherwise the requirement of submission of C.T. Certificate in original or sought its verification by the issuing authority is not un-reasonable demand in view of the present scenario when a tendency has developed in our society whereby people in every walk of life supporting their claims basing on forged and fabricated certificates/documents, etc.
9. In the light what has been discussed above when the act complained of is not discriminatory and the petitioners themselves have annexed their C.T. Certificates alongwith the record of this writ petition, there is hardly any ground to interfere in the matter by this Court while exercising its Constitutional jurisdiction. Resultantly, this writ petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed.