' SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.--- Through the instant Writ Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners, who have qualified B.Sc. Telecommunication Engineering Course from Government College University, Faisalabad/ respondent No,2, during the Session 2004-2008, prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents, jointly and severally, to recognize and register their degrees of B.Sc. Telecommunication Engineering for the Session 2004-2008 by granting retrospective accreditation to Government College University, Faisalabad/respondent No,2 for the batch of years 2004-2008.
2. The facts necessary for the adjudication of lis in hand are that present petitioners, 37 in number, along with 92 other students were admitted as regular students at Government College University, Faisalabad/respondent No,2 for a Degree Program of B.Sc. Telecommunication Engineering for the Session 2004-2008 and after successful completion of all the relevant examinations, held by respondent No,2, B.Sc. Degrees were awarded to them. However, respondent No, 1 /Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC) has refused to recognize the degrees of the petitioners for the purpose of their registration as accredited engineers on the pretext that respondent No,2 lacked accreditation during the period when the petitioners were admitted and enrolled in the Telecommunication Engineering Program of the University and that accreditation was granted to the University effective for intake of 2005 batch. The petitioners contended that respondent No,1 has granted recognition/ accreditation to respondent No,2 for the intake batch of year 2005-2009 but did not afford the same treatment to the petitioners, who were admitted for the Session 2004-2008, without any lawful justification. They claimed that the impugned action of respondent No,1 is violative of Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners, being bona fide students of the B.Sc. Telecommunication Engineering Program of the respondent No,2/University, paid all the fees, attended the classes and successfully qualified all semesters of the Degree Program for the Session 2004-2008 and as result thereof, respondent No,2 awarded B.Sc. Degrees to them.
However, respondent No,1 has refused to recognize the said degrees for registration of the petitioners as qualified engineers on the pretext that the University lacked accreditation during the period when the petitioners were enrolled and studied at University, while respondent No, 1/PEC granted accreditation to the Batches of 2005 and 2006 without any condition, it imposed condition for accreditation of 2004 batch requiring further attendance of Lab. Sessions for which 'petitioners submitted separate fee in the University of Engineering and Technology and passed the Exams of Lab. Session. However, despite the same, respondent No,1 /PEC required that the petitioners should further attend courses pertaining to Switching and Transmission and Microwave Engineering, which too were taken and passed by the petitioneRs, Even then respondent No,1/PEC refused to recognize the degrees of the petitioners and forced them as well as other students of 2004-2008 batch to take a remedial Exam. The petitioners, being desperate to get the registration, appeared in the said exams but no result was announced and surprisingly, respondent No, 1/PEC again asked the petitioners to take another Remedial Exam. To be held on 5-7-2010 without any justification, whereupon, the whole Session of 2004-2008 including the present petitioners boycotted the said examination. Further contended that respondent No,1/PEC has granted recognition/accreditation to respondent No,2 for the year 2005-2009 and degrees of students of 20052009 batch have been recognized but did not afford the same treatment to the petitioners, who were students for the Session 2004-2008, despite the fact that the petitioners went through more extensive training such as Lab. Sessions etc., which act is without any lawful justification and is in violation of Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution. He further submitted that Section 10 of the Punjab Engineering Council Act, 1976 does not confer any power on respondent No,1 to impose any condition while granting accreditation. Once an institution is granted accreditation and notification to that effect is issued, the passing out engineers carrying the degrees from the said institution are entitled as of right for recognition of their degrees. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the cases of Khurram Khan, Advocate v. Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary and 6 others (PLD 2009 Lahore 22), Pervez Afzal and 91 others v. Pakistan Engineering Council through Chairman and 4 others (PLD 2005 Peshawar 5) and Ms. Shehla Zia and others v.
WAPDA (PLD 1994 Supreme Court 693).
4. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 contended that the PEC is a statutory body and is being governed by the Act ibid having ample powers to regulate the engineering profession in the country and as such, jurisdiction to accredit the engineering programs of universities and colleges and register engineers solely vest with it. He further submitted that in the present case, respondent No,2, vide letter dated 16-3-2005, requested for guidelines for commencement of Telecommunication Engineering Course and in reply, PEC forwarded the requisite guidelines, vide letter dated 22-3-2005, with the request to apply for accreditation of the Engineering Program after fulfilling the basic requirement for inspection of program. However, despite several reminders, the College sent its first request for accreditation of B.Sc. Telecommunication Engineering Program (Batch 2004-2008) on 16-6-2008. In response, PEC, vide letter dated 3-7-2008, intimated respondent No,2 to furnish the required/deficient documents and after receipt of deficient documents, the interim inspection visit of above mentioned program for the Batch 2004-2008 was conducted by PEC in February, 2009. The visitation report was discussed in Engineering Accreditation and qualification equivalence Committee (EA & QEC) 55th (Additional) meeting, which was held in April, 2009 at PEC HQ. However, initially accreditation was denied on the ground that the program is quite weak and not recommended for accreditation in its present shape. Later, respondent No,2 submitted request for accreditation of Batch 2005 and the same was recommended for 2005-2009 Batch only, with some observations. Respondent No,2 applied for review of accreditation for Batch 2004-2008. During the review visit by PEC on 14th November, 2009, the visitation experts recommended some core remedial courses to be conducted by respondent No,2 for makeup of Batch 2004-2008 and a subsequent Exam to be taken by PEC. The students of Batch 2004-2008 including present petitioners appeared in remedial Exams but none of them passed the said Exams Learned counsel for respondent No,1 concluded the arguments by stating that in view of the students' future at stake, respondent No, 1/PEC decided to give another opportunity to students to take another remedial Exam to be held on 5-7-2010, which was boycotted. However, respondent No,1 is still willing to afford the same opportunity, if this Court so directs.
5. I have given anxious consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, in addition to examining the record.
6. In this backdrop, following questions have arisen, which require adjudication:.
(i) Whether the accreditation once granted has retrospective effect?
(ii) Whether the condition of qualifying remedial examination could validly be imposed by PEC?
(iii) Whether students of 2004-2008 Batch (Leftover Batch) have waived their right to have equal treatment afforded to the 20052009 Batch by respondent No,1 by taking remedial examination?
7. Admittedly, by virtue of section 16 read with section 17 of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act 1976, the Council has been entrusted with the responsibility, amongst others, of registration of professional engineers from persons possessing accredited engineering qualifications. As per section 27 of the Act, undertaking of any professional engineering work without being registered as a qualified engineer as above entails penalties and punishment. It is, therefore, in accordance with the overall scheme of the Act that PEC should make proper inquiries and investigations (in accordance with Law) before enrolment of an engineer as an accredited professional engineer.
Undoubtedly, on request of respondent No,2, PEC conducted interim visit of respondent No,2/ University's BSc. Telecommunication Programme (Batch 2004-2008) on 16-6-2008 but did not recommend accreditation. Respondent No,2 again requested for a review of accreditation of the same Batch as per third governing body decision. Accordingly, a review accreditation visit for the Batch (2004-2008) was conducted by the PEC on 14th of November, 2009. The recommendations of the visitation experts were approved by the PEC in the light of 3rd Governing Body Decision and it was decided as under:--- "The case be considered under the 3rd Governing Body Decision and University will complete the remedial education as directed in PEC visit report communicated earlier. PEC visitation team will verify the conduct of remedial education by next month. Those who will attend make up classes with minimum 75% attendance and passed the examination conducted with minimum 60% marks will become eligible for PEC registration".
' Hence, it is clear that the remedial classes were arranged by the University and examination was also held as per recommendations of the decision of the Governing Body. Unfortunately, none of the 139 students of Batch 2004-2008 was able to qualify the examination. Taking stock of this situation, PEC announced holding of another examination but the students boycotted the same. In the meantime, accreditation of Batch 2005-2009 and 2006-2010 was granted by the PEC in 2010.
7-A. It is also worth-consideration that respondent No,2 initiated the process of accreditation by requesting guidelines from the PEC in the year 2005, although proper application was made in the year 2008. In this regard, the stance of respondent No,2 is that an institution applying for accreditation is bound to have campus, requisite facilities and most importantly, faculty before being considered for the accreditation. This involves huge expense and any institution cannot generate revenue unless it admits the students. Regardless of the merit of this explanation, the fact remains that respondent No,2 had failed to apply for accreditation within time resulting in delayed process of accreditation by PEC.
8. The relevant provisions of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975 for accreditation of engineering qualifications as well as accreditation of Engineering Institutions are being reproduced hereunder for ready reference:--- "10. Accreditation of engineering qualifications granted by institutions in Pakistan.--- (1) The engineering qualifications granted by engineering institutions in Pakistan which are included in the First Schedule shall be the accredited engineering qualifications for the purposes of this Act (2) Any Engineering institution in Pakistan which grants an engineering qualification not included in the First Schedule may apply to the council to have such qualification accredited and the Council may by notification in the official Gazette amend the first schedule so as to include such qualification therein."
13. Power to require information as to courses of study and examination --- Every engineering institution in Pakistan which grants an accredited engineering qualification shall furnish such information as the Council may, from time to time, require as to the courses of study and examination to be undergone in order to obtain such qualification.
14. Accreditation of engineering institutions.--- (1) The Council shall constitute an Accreditation Committee for organizing and carrying out a comprehensive program of accreditation of engineering universities, colleges and institutions etc. According to the criteria approved by the Governing Body in consultation with Higher Education Commission.
(2) The curricula of courses of studies in various disciplines of engineering and minimum level and standard of such courses including lectures, laboratory, design, drawing and field work shall be examined and scrutinized by the Accreditation Committee who shall submit its report to the Governing Body for approval.
15. Withdrawal of accreditation.--- (1) When upon report by the Accreditation Committee, it appears to the Council that the courses of study and examination to be gone through in any engineering institution in Pakistan in order to obtain an accredited engineering qualification or the standards of proficiency required from candidates in any examination held for the purpose of granting such qualification are not such to secure to person holding such qualification the knowledge and skill requisite for the efficient practice of engineering, the Council shall forward the report to the engineering institution concerned with an intimation of the period within which it may submit its explanation to the Council.
(2) On receipt of the explanation or, where no explanation is submitted within the specified period, on the expiry of that period, the Council, after making such further inquiry, if any, as it may think fit, may, by notification in the official Gazette, direct that an entry shall be made in the First Schedule against the engineering qualification to which the explanation relates declaring that it shall be an accredited engineering qualification only when granted before a specified date.
' Sum and substance of these provisions is that accredited engineering qualifications are included in the First Schedule and if not so included ' may be included in the schedule through a notification in the official Gazette. However, before such notification, the Council is required to organize a comprehensive program of accreditation according to the criteria approved by the Governing Body. For this purpose, the curricula of courses of studies, minimum level and the standard of such courses including lectures, laboratory, design, drawing and field work shall be examined and scrutinized by the PEC through accreditation committees and the Governing Bodies. In the instant case, no accreditation was requested for by respondent No,2 for Batch of 2004-2008 till the year 2008. In view of clear provisions of the Act, these students were not entitled to be enrolled as professional engineers by the PEC and they could not undertake any professional engineering work. In spite of delayed request from respondent No,2, PEC carried out interim and review visits to facilitate accreditation of Batch' of 2004-2008 and had made recommendations for make up classes and special examination for the Batch 2004-2008 for the said purpose. In fact, PEC notified accreditation of 2004-2008 Batch and included the same in the Schedule, vide Notification dated 12-8-2010. However, the accreditation is subject to qualifying the remedial education to be verified by the University. This amendment in the Schedule, dated 12-8-2010, is in fact, an enabling and beneficial legislation aimed at facilitating those students, who have failed to receive accreditation for no major fault on their part. The amending notification, which is a part of law, has not been challenged directly or indirectly in this petition. The amendment through aforesaid notification, being a beneficial legislation, is retrospective in nature and has to be acted upon in its entirety.
9. As regards the issue as to whether by taking the remedial Exams., the present petitioners along with other students of 2004-2008 Batch have waived their right of equal treatment afforded to students of 2005-2009 Batch, whereof the later were admitted/recognized without sitting in remedial Exams. It is settled principle of law that Grund Norm of the country under Article 25 confers equal protection to persons, who are similarly placed. However, the case of the present petitioners cannot be equated with the subsequent batches, who are not shown to have been under the same disability as faced by the petitioneRs, The notification dated 12-8-2010 has been issued to help out the petitioners in order to bring them at par with their subsequent batch mates.
There is nothing on record to show that the deficiencies, pointed out by the accreditation committee of the PEC, and their recommendations for make up Exams were unjustified and unreasonable. Accordingly, Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 cannot be invoked in their favour. However, the petitioners taking the make up examinations would not constitute waiver. In the case of Central Board of Revenue and 3 others v. Seven-Up Bottling Company (Pvt.) Ltd. (1996 SCM R 700), it was held that rights of citizens cannot be defeated on the ground of waiver and waiver cannot be held as an excuse to deprive citizens of their rights under the Constitution. Similarly, the petitioners' refusal to sit in the second examination, as proposed by the PEC, would also not debar them from participating in such examination, which may be held by the PEC/respondent No,2 for implementing the true spirit of notification dated 12-8-2010.
10. The upshot of the above discussion is that, the respondent No,1 has already granted conditional accreditation to respondent No,2/ Government College University, Faisalabad for the students of Session 2004-2008 and as such, the prayer made in this petition to this extent has borne fruit.
However, the condition of qualifying the remedial Exam., imposed by respondent No,1, for registering the degrees of the petitioners for B.Sc. Telecommunication Engineering is in accordance with law. Hence, respondent No,1 is directed to hold a remedial Exam. For the intake Batch of 2004- 2008 only, at the earliest, and recognize as well as register their degrees of B.Sc.
Telecommunication Engineering, in case they are able to qualify the remedial Exam.
11. The instant petition is decided in the above terms.