' NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, J.--- This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.7756 8681, 6963, 7213 and 9121 all of 2011 which involve common questions of law and facts.
2. The Secretary Higher Education Department, Government of Punjab through a public notice published in the daily "Nawa-i-Waqt dated 19-1-2011 invited applications to fill the posts of Vice- Chancellors in the following six universities:---
(i) University of Education, Lahore.
(ii) Lahore College for Women University, Lahore.
(iii) Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpindi.
(iv) Bahauddin Zakriya University, Multan.
(v) Government College University, Lahore.
(vi) University of Sargodha, Sargodha.
' The eligibility criteria stated in the said publication for the prospective candidates was mentioned as follows:--- Eligibility Criteria ' Should have Ph.D degree in any subject from a reputed University.
' Should not be more than 65 years of age on 4-2-2011.
' Both male and female candidates are eligible to apply (for Lahore College for Women University, Lahore and Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpindi, only female candidates are eligible).
' Should have vast experience in postgraduate teaching including experience in administrative and financial management.
' Should have to his/her credit quality research publications in journals of international repute.
' In addition to the above the following attributes were also specified in the advertisement for consideration of the candidates:--- ' Possess distinguished reputation as a scholar and academician having close familiarity with academic functions both in classroom teaching and research.
' Experience in higher education management.
' Capability and experience of resource mobilization. Leadership squalities for policy making in relation to efficient and effective management of all affairs of Universities.
' Some 224 candidates applied in response to the said advertisement. Earlier a Search Committee comprising the following eminent educationists and scholars was reconstituted vide Notification No,SO(UNIV.)6-2(2000), dated 3-4-2009:- {{ TABLE }} Syed Babar Ali, Pro-Chancellor, Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) Convener Mr. Sartaj Aziz, Vice-Chancellor, Beaconhouse National University, Lahore Member
(ii) Lt. Gen. (R) Muhammad Akram Khan Vice-Chancellor, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore Member Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore Member Secretary, Government of the Punjab Higher Education Department. Ex-Officio/ Secretary of the Committee Syed Babar Ali, Pro-Chancellor, Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS)Convener Mr. Sartaj Aziz, Vice-Chancellor, Beaconhouse National University, LahoreMember Lt. Gen. (R) Muhammad Akram Khan Vice-Chancellor, University of Engineering and Technology, LahoreMember Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore Member Secretary, Government of the Punjab Higher Education Department.Ex-Officio/ Secretary of the committee
3. The Search Committee on the basis of evaluation criteria short listed 89 candidates from amongst the 224 applicants for calling them for interview purposes in order to assess their eligibility. The petitioners were not included in the short listed 89 candidates and felt aggrieved of the above act of exclusion of their names from the short listed candidates and resultantly the present writ petitions were instituted against the act of the exclusion of their names from the short listed candidates.
4. Vide order dated 7-6-2011 notice in compliance with the provisions of Order XXVII-A of C.P.C. Was issued to the Advocate-General Government of Punjab to appear in this case and assist the Court on the questions raised in the writ petitions.
5. The respondents submitted parawise comments which have been made part of the record.
6. Mr. Anwar Kamal learned senior counsel mainly addressed the arguments in all the writ petitions and the learned counsel representing other petitioners in the connected writ petitions relied upon his arguments. The learned counsel representing the petitioner of Writ Petition No,5841 of 2011 only added one point that at the evaluation criteria assessment of the candidates the administrative experience of the petitioner Dr. Yousaf Hayat Khan of Writ Petition No,7213 of 2011, was not at all considered for preparing the table of marks of the said candidate which according to the said learned counsel deprived the petitioner from being included in the list of selected candidates who were called upon for interviews.
7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has raised two basic objections about the process being evolved by the respondents for short listing the candidates:---
(i) That the Search Committee which was constituted by the respondents 1 and 6 has no legal basis
(ii) That the evaluation criteria fixed for short listing the candidates was also illegal and arbitrary and has resulted into grave discrimination against the petitioners.
' While elaborating the point on Search Committee being allegedly lacking the legal basis, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the members of Search Committee have not been selected on the basis of any validly regulated procedure prescribed for the purpose. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that none of the members of the Search Committee was himself the holder of a PhD. Degree and therefore all of them suffered from lack of inherent qualification in themselves to assess the eligibility and capability of the candidates for the posts of Vice-Chancellors all of whom admittedly were holders of PhD. Degrees either from the Pakistani Universities or from abroad. The learned counsel also argued that the working of Search Committee also lacked any credible mechanism which is the necessary condition for the purposes of transparent performance of a public functionary.
8. Elaborating the point about the objections of the petitioners upon the evaluation criteria the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the evaluation criteria was fixed subsequent to completion of process of invitation of applications. The learned counsel submitted that by adding of five additional marks to the credit of those PhDs who got their qualifications from foreign universities has resulted into an automatic exclusion of the Ph.Ds. From the Pakistani universities.
The learned counsel contended that this act has created an open discrimination for the Pakistani Ph.D. Degree holders. The learned counsel further pointed out that the evaluation criteria as set down by the Search Committee for short listing the candidates has completely overlooked the last item in the eligibility criteria stated in the newspaper advertisement dated 19-1-2011 which reads that a candidate should have to his/her credit quality research publications in journals of international repute. Thus the learned counsel contended that the evaluation criteria is violative of the eligibility criteria as published in the advertisements and is therefore arbitrary. The learned counsel also took exception to the allocation of 40 marks for interview purposes and also contended the same as well being arbitrary and without any legal basis. The learned counsel thus prayed that the entire process of selection of the candidates for the posts of Vice-Chancellors for the six universities listed in the advertisement be directed to be commenced de novo to be regulated by some rule-based evaluation criteria fixed earlier in time than the commencement of the selection process and that some specific statutory basis be also directed to be created for the purpose of functioning of the members of the Search Committee. The writ petitions were therefore prayed to be accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments reported as DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. D.T.C. MAZDOOR CONGRESS AND OTHERS (AIR 1991 SC 101), SHAIKH ZAYED HOSPITAL AND POST GRAUDATE MEDICAL INSTITUTES THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND DEAN AND ANOTHER v. DR. MUHAMMAD SAEED AND ANOTHER (2010 PLC (C.S.) 967), MOHINDER SAIN GARG v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (1991) (1 SUPREME COURT CASES 662), VIKRAM SINGH AND ANOTHER v.
SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD, HARYANA AND OTHERS (1991) (1 SUPREME COURT CASES 686) and an unreported judgment passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No,5841 of 2011 in support of his contentions.
9. The learned Additional Advocate-General assisted by the learned Assistant. Advocate-General has addressed arguments vehemently opposing the maintainability of the writ petitions. It was argued by them that the Search Committee comprised eminent educationists of the country three of whom are nominated by names whereas the two senior government officials have been made members of the Search Committee for its proper administrative functioning. The learned Additional Advocate General of Punjab pointed out that admittedly no mala fides are attributed to the members of the Search Committee by the petitioners and that keeping in view the long standing experience of the specifically nominated members 1, 2 and 3, in the relevant field the government has-reposed full confidence in them for selecting suitable candidates for the posts in question. It was pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate-General that this process of constituting the Search Committee was commenced first in the year 2005 through a notification dated 7-1-2005 which process was first commenced at the federal level and later on for the purpose of the selection of candidates against the posts of Vice-Chancellors of six public sector universities enumerated in the advertisement the present Search Committee was also reconstituted through notification dated 3-4-2009 by the Higher Education Commission at the provincial level. The learned Additional Advocate-General pointed out that Higher Education Commission also provided guidelines for selection of the Rectors/Vice-Chancellors to the Search Committee and the photocopies of the relevant notifications as well of the guidelines were produced before the Court and the copies of the same were handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioners for their perusal on 7-6-2011. The learned Additional Advocate-General further argued that the guidelines provided by the Higher Education Commission to the members of the Search Committee duly constitutes the instructions of the government and have the force of law. The learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the judgments reported as (1) THE PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN"
THROUGH THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT AND (2) THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE v. CH. DIN MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS AND (1) THE PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT AND (2) THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE v. ZAFAR ALI SHAH AND OTHERS (PLD 1964 SC 21), KHAN FAIZULLAH KHAN V. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN (PLD 1974 SC 291), MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE v. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND 2 OTHERS (PLD 1996 SC 197) SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT, IRRIGATION SECRETARIAT LAHORE v. ABDUL HAMID ARIF AND OTHERS (1991 SCMR 628), MUHAMMAD UMAR KHAN v. YOUSAF ARAB AND OTHERS, MUHAMMAD UMAR KHAN v. THE STATE (1973 SCMR 134) and MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE AND OTHERS v. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHERS (2005 SCMR 980) and the learned Additional Advocate General also referred to an unreported judgment by a Division Bench of this Court passed in Writ Petition No,245 of 2010, in support of his contentions.
10. The learned Additional Advocate-General as well as the learned Assistant Advocate-General concluded that a transparent process for selection of the candidates has been undertaken by the members of the Search Committee who were eminent educationists. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the awarding of 5 additional marks to the holders of Ph.Ds. From foreign universities does not amount to any discriminatory act but constitutes giving due recognition to better qualified persons who get their education from well known high ranking universities from. Abroad. The learned Additional Advocate-General also contended that in the present case the allocation of 40 marks for the candidates who have been called for interview are not only made to give more transparency to the selection process by the Search Committee but is also not violative of any provision of law. The learned Additional Advocate-General pointed out that the petitioners do not have any locus standi to raise any objection to the allocation of 40 marks for interview purposes as the present petitioners have not reached the stage of the interview and therefore they cannot be said to be aggrieved of the said allocation of marks. The learned Additional Advocate-General contended that in respect of contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner of Writ Petition No,7213 of 2011, the Higher Education Department officials called him to appear before them and give documentary proof of his claimed experience but the said petitioner could not do the needful that is why he was not given any marks for the experience section of the evaluation criteria. Thus the learned Additional Advocate General as well as the learned Assistant Advocate-General vehemently prayed for the dismissal of the writ petitions.
11. It is also pointed that the petitioners moved C.M. No,2022 of 2011 on 8-6-2011 for impleading the Governor in his capacity as Chancellor, as the respondent in the writ petition, C.M. No,2029 of 2011 on 8-6-2011 seeking amendment of the Writ Petition No,7756 of 2011 by adding the prayer that the Search Committee be graciously restrained from proceeding further in the matter and C.M.No,2038 of 2011 on 9-6-2011 for impleading all the 89 candidates who have been selected for interview purposes All the three C.Ms. Detailed above have been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate-General as not being entertain able at this stage of the proceedings.
12. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance.
13. I would like first of all to dispose of the three C.Ms. Moved by the petitioners at the fag end of the proceedings of the instant writ petitions. In so far as the prayer with regard to the implement of the Governor of Punjab/Chancellor of the universities is concerned, the Province of Punjab has been impleaded in the writ petitions and it sufficiently covers the office of the Governor who js ex-officio Chancellor of the universities of the Punjab whose Vice-Chancellors are to be appointed. The writ petitions have been finally heard and at this stage I do not think that the formal and separate implement of the Governor of the Punjab/Chancellor of the Universities would be necessary therefore this request is declined. The prayer for implement of the 89 short listed candidates for interviews by the Search Committee is also without any legal basis. Since the writ petitions have not been admitted to regular hearing therefore in view of the orders to be passed for the disposal of the instant writ petitions by me, there is no necessity to implead 89 short listed candidates selected for interview purposes. Through the third C.M. a request has been made for adding the prayer for interim relief in the prayer clause. This amendment is also without any legal necessity.
Moreover in view of the main judgment to be passed by me I do not think it appropriate to allow this prayer as well. This C.M. Is also accordingly dismissed.
14. All the six universities in which the posts of Vice-Chancellors have fallen vacant and are intended to be filled, have been statutory bodies and their respective affairs are being run and managed under separate statutes, the detail of which is reflected as follows:--- 1.The University of Education, Lahore Ordinance, 2002 (Punjab Ordinance L of 2002)
2The Lahore College for Women University Lahore Ordinance, 2002 (Punjab Ordinance XLIX of 2002)
3The Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpindi Ordinance, 1999 (Punjab Ordinance XLIII of 1999).
4The Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University Act, 1975 (Punjab Act . III of 1975)
5The Government College University, Lahore Ordinance, 2002 (Punjab Ordinance XLVIII of 2002).
' All the above statutes recognize the posts of the Vice-Chancellors as one of the four components of the university, the other three being the Chancellor, Syndicate and the Academic Council. In all the statutes of the respective universities the Vice-Chancellor is also one of the officers of the university. In all the above statutes the relevant provisions through a specific section have been made providing for the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor by the Chancellor on such terms and conditions as the Chancellor may determine. The statues of all the above universities further specifically contain separate sections with common factors dealing with the powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor. One of the statutes is the University of the Education, Lahore Ordinance, 2002 and it deals with this aspect in its section 14 and is reproduced below:--- Power and duties of the Vice-Chancellor.--- (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive and academic officer of the University and shall ensure that the provisions of this Ordinance, the Statutes, the Regulations and the Rules are faithfully observed in order to promote teaching, research, publication, administration and the general efficiency and good order of the University. He shall have all powers necessary for this purpose including administrative control over all officers, teachers and other employees of the University.
(2) The Vice-Chancellor shall, in the absence of the Chancellor, preside at a convocation of the University. He shall have all powers necessary for this purpose including administrative control over all officers, teachers and other employees of the University and shall preside at the meetings of the Authorities and other bodies of the University, Divisions and constituent Colleges of which he may or may not be the head.
(3) The Vice-Chancellor may, in an emergency which in his opinion requires immediate action, take such action as he may consider necessary and shall, as soon thereafter as possible, report his action for approval to the officer, authority or other body which in ordinary course would have dealt with the matter.
(4) The Vice-Chancellor shall also have the powers to:---
(a) Create and fill temporary posts for a period not exceeding six months.
(b) Sanction all expenditure provided for in the approved budget and to re-appropriate funds within the same major head of expenditure.
(c) Sanction by re-appropriation an amount not exceeding one hundred and fifty thousand rupees for an unforeseen item not provided for in the budget and report is to the Syndicate at the next meeting.
(d) Appoint paper setters and examiners for all examinations or the University after receiving panels of names from the relevant Authorities.
(e) Make such arrangements for the scrutiny of papers, marks and results as he may consider necessary.
(f) Direct teachers, officers and other employees of the University to take up such assignments in connection with teaching, research, examinations, administration and such other activities in the University as he may consider necessary for the purpose of the University.
(g) Delegate, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be prescribed, any of his powers under this Ordinance, to an officer or officers of the University.
(h) Exercise general control and supervision over the system of examination of the University.
(i) Exercise and perform such other power and functions as may be prescribed.
(j) Appoint visiting professors in various disciplines for a period not more than one academic year on the terms and conditions as prescribed; and
(k) Appoint employees below the rank of lecturer or any equivalent officer.
' Similar statutory provisions have been added in the statutes of the other universities with a difference of serial number of the section only. The perusal of the powers and duties of the Vice- Chancellor therefore highlights that the Vice-Chancellor of each such university is the Principal Executive and Academic Officer of the university who shall ensure the enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance, statutes, the regulations and rules and shall promote general functioning and good orders of the university and has been conferred upon all the powers for the above mentioned purposes and is thus entrusted with the administrative control over all the officers, teachers, students and employees of the university. Thus the post of a Vice-Chancellor is combination of multidimensional academic as well as of personal qualities touching the matters of the administration as well as the working of the university. The matter of appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the university has thus been entrusted to the Chancellor of the university which office is ex-officio combined with that of the Governor of the province. The terms and conditions for the appointment of Vice-Chancellor therefore in all the statutes governing six universities have to be determined by the Chancellor of the university.
15. The learned Additional Advocate General has in this respect placed on record an earlier notification dated 7-1-2005 issued by the Governor/Chancellor which notification is reproduced below:--- ' GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (Higher Education Wing)
' 7th January, 2005 NOTIFICATION ' No,S.0,(Univ.)6-2/2000.--- In supersession of this department notification of even No, dated 10th August, 2004. The Governor/Chancellor has been pleased to constitute the following Standing Search Committee for selection of suitable persons for appointment as Vice-Chancellor of Universities as and when required:---
(i) Syed Babar Ali, Pro-Chancellor, Lahore University of Management Sciences(LUMS)Convener
(ii) Mr. Sartaj Aziz, Vice-Chancellor, Beaconhouse National University, LahoreMember (iii)Lt. Gen. (R) Muhammad Akram Khan, Vice-Chancellor, University of Engineering and Technology LahoreMember
(iv) Mr. Khushnood Akhtar Lashari, Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, LahoreMember
(v) Secretary, Higher EducationDepartment Government of the PunjabEx-Officio/ Secretary of the Committee ' By Order of the Governor/Chancellor SHAHID RASHID SECRETARY EDUCATION ' A copy of the minutes of the 2nd Chancellor's Committee meeting held on 11-5-2006 at the office of the then President's Secretariat (Camp office) Rawalpindi under the auspicious of federal government has also been placed on the record in which paragraph No,7 of the instruction is relevant and is reproduced below:--- "Vice-Chancellors of all Provincial Public Universities should be appointed after advertisement through a Search Committee process. The Search Committee will be required to put up a panel of 3 names for approval of the Chancellor from whom the Vice-Chancellor may be selected."
' The guidelines for selection of Vice-Chancellors have also been put into black and white which guidelines have been laid down by the Higher Education Commission and which guidelines are reproduced below:--- "Higher Education Commission A & C Division ' Guidelines for Selection of the Rector/Vice-Chancellor Introduction. Rector or Vice-Chancellor is fundamentally a leadership position that largely determines destiny of University or a Degree Awarding Institute. Conceiving a vision and a mission statement and, then leading University functions of achieving excellence and international compatibilities in academic learning, research, technological applications, social harmony and development and transparent governance through guiding, motivating and inspiring faculty and administration are a few of the core tasks associated with the position of a Rector or Vice-Chancellor. The Guidelines for Selection of the Rector/Vice-Chancellor are aimed at identifying crucial aspects that need to be valued by the Search Committee while processing selection of a Rector or Vice-Chancellor.
' The Search Committee is encouraged to invite and or nominate potential candidates for the position of Vice-Chancellor/Rector, in writing, explaining the basis of recommendation and having been availed willingness of the nominee to assume the responsibility and honor of governing a public sector university.
(1) Should preferably have earned doctorate degree in an academic discipline and an outstanding academician of international statute.
(2) Should have attained a distinguished leadership preferably in education and academic administration and financial management with proven track record of extensive experience and skills in initiating and managing change, strategic planning and overseeing the implementation of plans through to outcomes.
(3) In-depth knowledge of the major issues affecting learning and teaching in higher education funding and technological developments.
(4) Thorough understanding of the scholarly purposes of a university and of the economic, social and political issues faced by the higher education sector nationally and internationally.
(5) An understanding of the diverse needs of and issues pertaining different disciplines in higher education and the ability to form and balance priorities relevant to national socio-economic needs and growth.
(6) Ability to represent the university effectively, nationally and internationally, especially with government, business and the wider community.
(7) In-depth knowledge of the major development in higher education learning and teaching with ability to create linkage and networks.
(8) Excellent entrepreneurial, negotiating, interpersonal and communication skills with strong ability to work collaboratively and inspire staff and teams to achieve organizational tasks and goals.
(9) Commitment to equal opportunity principles, transparent government and swift response."
16. Lastly the Governor/Chancellor of all the universities has reconstituted a Search Committee for selection of suitable persons for appointment as Vice-Chancellor of public sector universities in Punjab and a notification dated 3-4-2009 has been issued which is reproduced below:--- ' GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ' 3rd April, 2009 NOTIFICATION .
No,S.0.(Univ.)6-2/2000.--- In supersession of this Department's Notification of even No, dated 7th January, 2005 and 20th July 2006, the Governor/Chancellor has been pleased to appoint the following Standing Search Committee for selection of suitable persons for appointment as. Vice- Chancellor of Public Sector Universities in Punjab as and when required:---
(i) Syed Babar Ali, Pro-Chancellor, Lahore University of Management Sciences(LUMS)Convener
(ii) Mr. Sartaj Aziz, Vice-Chancellor, Beaconhouse National University, LahoreMember (iii)Lt. Gen. (R) Muhammad Akram Khan, Vice-Chancellor, University of Engineering and Technology LahoreMember
(iv) Mr. Khushnood Akhtar Lashari, Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, LahoreMember
(v) Secretary, Higher EducationDepartment Government of the PunjabEx-Officio/ Secretary of the Committee By Order of the Governor/Chancellor SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION NO. AND DATE EVEN.
' A copy is forwarded for information/necessary action to:
1. P.S. To Principal Secretary to Governor, Punjab.
2. P.S. To Chief Secretary Punjab, Lahore.
3. P.S. To Secretary, Higher Education Department, Govt. Of the Punjab.
4. All the members of the committee.
5. Notification File.
' SECTION OFFICER (UNIV.)
17. It is thus observed that the process for the selection of candidates for the appointment to the posts of Vice-Chancellors of the universities in question have been given a transparent mechanism of inviting applications through publications in the daily newspapers of the country which in the present case has been done through the daily Nawai-Waqt dated 19-1-2011 as well as the daily Jang and Dawn dated 21-1-2011 which fact is specifically stated in the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and has not been disputed by the petitioners. The Chancellor i,e, Governor has constituted a Search Committee comprising renowned educationists and scholars having vast experience extending over more than two decades in heading the well- known institutions of the country. This step of the Chancellor demonstrates the taking of practical steps towards the exclusion of arbitrariness and secret decision making process by one person alone i,e, the Chancellor. The valuable services rendered by the un-official members of the Search Committee in heading and successfully running the top most universities of the country needs to be duly acknowledged and merely because those three members are not themselves holders of PhD degrees as alleged by the petitioners cannot be held to be a factor to underestimate and undermine their respective scholarly and administrative potentials. Needless to say that the three educational institutions named against their names being managed by the above mentioned three un-official members of the Search Committee are undoubtedly availing the services of numerous Ph.Ds. Already forming the respectable members of the respective faculties of the said institutions.
18. The learned counsel for the petitioners have not attributed any mala fides to the members of the Search Committee. An attempt has also been made by me to look into the antecedents of the first three members of the Search Committee which are available on the Internet and are reproduced below:--- "Syed Babar Ali, Chairman, Packages Limited, Pakistan.
' As an entrepreneur and industrialist, Syed Babar Ali envisioned and set up Packages Limited (Pakistan's largest paper and board mill), Milkpak Limited - now Nestle Pakistan Limited - (the largest food processing company in Pakistan); Tetra Pak Pakistan Limited, IGI Insurance Company Limited, Tri-Pack Films Limited, and IGI Investment Bank. He is Chairman of Sanofi-Aventis Pakistan Limited, Siemens Pakistan Engineering Company Limited, and Coca-Cola Beverages Pakistan Limited. He believes in the joint venture philosophy and most of his businesses are joint ventures with major multinationals. As an educationist, he led the establishment of the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) in 1985 of which he is the first Pro-Chancellor, LUMS is Pakistan's premier management education institution. In 1992, he founded Ali Institute of Education for training of primary and secondary school teachers. He is a member of the Board of the following important educational institutions of Lahore: Aitchison College, F.C. College, Kinnaird College, and Lahore. School of Economics. He is a member of the Regional Advisory Board of London Business School and a Member of the Initiative on Social Enterprise of Harvard University. He promoted the cause of the World Wide Fund for Nature (earlier World Wildlife Fund) where he served in various capacities, both in Pakistan and internationally, from 1972 to 1996. He was International President of WWF from 1996 to 1999 succeeding HRH Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh. He is now Vice- President Emeritus, WWF International, and President Emeritus WWFPakistan. He is Co-Chair of South Asia Centre for Policy Studies currently based in Nepal. He served as Pakistan's Minister of Finance, Economic Affairs and Planning in 1993. He set up Babar Ali Foundation in 1985. The Foundation gives about a million dollars a year primarily for education and health in Pakistan. He is also a member of Layton Rehmatullah Benevolent Trust Karachi and Shalamar Hospital Lahore. He received honours and awards from the Government of Sweden, the Netherlands, an OBE from Britain (1997), and was awarded an Honorary Doctorate Degree of Laws from McGill University, Montreal, Canada (1997).
' Mr. Sartaj Aziz, ' A recognised development economist, hails from the spiritual Kakakhel family of N.-W.F.P. He was born on 7th February, 1929 and obtained a Degree in Commerce from the Punjab University in 1949.
In 1962, he proceeded to Harvard University (USA) where he earned a Master's Degree in Public Administration (Economic Development). He also got training and acquired expertise in development planning and management sciences. He joined Government service in 1950, held various posts and rose to the level of a Joint Secretary in the Planning Commission in 1967. He was one of the principal contributors to the Third and Fourth Five-Year Plans of Pakistan. Mr. Sartaj Aziz started his international career in 1971 in Rome, Italy and held important positions in the United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organisation (1971-75), World Food Council (197577) and International Fund for Agricultural Development (197884)_ He participated in a number of international conferences and was an active participant in the North-South dialogue and South- South Cooperation. Mr. Sartaj Aziz started his political career in April 1984 when he returned to Pakistan and joined the Federal Cabinet as Minister of State for Food, Agriculture and Cooperatives.
He was elected as a Senator from N.-W.F.P. In 1985 and returned again to the Senate of Pakistan from the Federal Capital Territory in March, 1988 for a six-year term. He was again elected as a Member of the Senate from the N.-W.F.P. Province in March, 1994 for another six-year term. Mr. Sartaj Aziz was appointed as Special Assistant to the Prime Minister in October 1985, Minister of State for Food and Agriculture in January, 1986, and Federal Minister for Food, Agriculture and Rural Development in June, 1988. He served as Federal Minister for Finance, Planning and Economic Affairs from August, 1990 to July, 1993, In July, 1993, Mr.. Sartaj Aziz was appointed as Secretary General of Pakistan Muslim League (N). Mr. Sartaj Aziz is holder of the Sanad, Mujahid-e-Pakistan by virtue of his participation in the Pakistan Movement. He was awarded Tamgha-e-Pakistan and Sitara-e-Khidmat in 1959 and 1967 respectively for his contribution to planning and development in the country. Senator Sartaj Aziz is Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs and a member of the Senate Standing Committees on Finance and Economic Affairs, Food and Agriculture.
' Lt. Gen. (R) Muhammad Akram Khan; ' is a renowned educationist and has been the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Engineering and Technology Lahore since the year 1997 and his tenure has been continuously extended eversince his appointment and the last extension was granted to him vide notification dated 12-10-2010 for further period of four years and although was assailed through a Writ Petition No,5841 of 2011 but his appointment was upheld by a learned single Judge of this Court through judgment announced on 18-5-2011 in the said writ petition.
' He has vast experience of running as Vice-Chancellor a renowned university of Lahore namely University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore.
19. The parawise comments of the respondents give the specific details of the evaluation criteria determined in the meeting dated 8-3-2011 of the members of the Search Committee for short listing the candidates and which is reproduced below:--- EVALUATION CRITERIA ' TOTAL MARKS: 100 Academic Qualification:30 Experience:30 Interview:40 Ph.D. 30 Maximum Marks 25 Marks will be awarded to a candidate having Ph.D. Degree(irrespective ofAcademic experience 15 MaximumAdministrative Experience 15 MaximumAllocation of marks for, academic orInterview marks shall be awarded foreign or local).05 marks will also be awarded to Ph.D holder candidate front one of the Top Ranking 500 Universities of the World for the year 2010.(Note: Grading of Universities made by QS World University Rankings 2010 will be followed.)AdministrativeExperience will be as under:* 1 to 5 years - 3* 6 to 10 years - 6* 11 to 15 years - 916to20years-12* 821 years and above - 15* Administrative experience will include administrative assignments in the field of education.Experience (Academic/ Administrative) of non- recognized educational institutions will not be considered.Teaching experience as visiting faculty will not be considered.by Standing Search Committee ' It was also disclosed in the parawise comments as follows:- ' The Higher Education Department short listed candidates as per above mentioned criteria approved by the Search Committee in the transparent manner and 89 candidates were short listed who obtained marks as under:--- Marks Obtained No, of Candidates .
Candidates securing 54 Marks 6 Candidates securing 51 Marks 45 Candidate securing 49 Marks 1 Candidates securing 48 Marks 37 Total Shortlisted Candidates 89 {{ TABLE }} The members of the Search Committee thus scrutinized the eligibility of the candidates on the basis of the above mentioned evaluation criteria and short listed 89 candidates by allocating the marks to each candidate on the basis of the above mentioned criteria. These 89 candidates have been selected for interview purposes to be conducted by the search Committee. The marks obtained by each of the writ petitioners as per report of the HEC are as follows:-- {{ TABLE }} S. No, Name of candidates Writ Petition No, Marks obtained Dr. Hassan Amir Shah 7756 of 2011 43 Dr. Shaukat Ali 6963 of 2011 * 46 Dr. Yousaf Hayat Khan 7213 of 2011 45 Dr. Maqbool Hussain Sial 8681 of 2011 42 Dr. Bushra Khan 9121 of 2011 40 {{ TABLE }}
20. All the five writ petitioners therefore fell lower in the merit list as finalized by the Search Committee constituted for the purpose and were not called upon for interview purposes and the instant writ petitions have been instituted by all of them. The Court therefore is of the opinion that the Search Committee consisting of eminent scholars have been constituted by the Governor for making recommendations about the selection of candidates on the basis of academic record as well as of the administrative experience of the respective candidates through a credible mechanism on the basis of an evaluation criteria determined for the purpose by the members of the Search Committee. The process has been commenced by the members of the Search Committee for selection of candidates through necessary advertisements in the three daily well known newspapers of the country. The eligibility criteria were given in detail in the newspapers.
21. The allocation of 5 additional marks to the credit of the qualifications of those who have obtained their Ph.D degrees from well-known top ranking 500 universities of the World cannot be an act creating discrimination as against Pakistani universities. It is a very wider scope created for those who have joined the process of acquiring education from the best amongst best universities/educational institutions of the World. It has not been even argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this ranking of top 500 universities, which is easily available on the Internet, has been influenced by any criteria except the best of the academic qualifications and learning standards. It is also a matter of universally known ground reality in the education field that these top ranking universities of the World adopt very systemic methods for granting admissions to students on purely merit basis. Before allowing admission to the students, they are made to appear in well-known written examination of SAT, GRE, GMAT, English Language Test etc. These are the well known tests through which computer based assessment of the eligibility of the candidates for admissions to different universities is made and then the students are allowed to join the research work in the known learning seats of education where research oriented update educational systems are in progress. We all know that research work and education standards in the well- known universities in Europe and America are promoting the works of high quality academic advancement. A student who spends five years in the learning process of universities of Harvard, Stanford, John Hopkins, NYU, University of South California, Cambridge. University, University of Virginia and many such like seats of learning compete on merits with millions of student getting education from all over the world in such like universities. The PhDs of such universities need to be given due recognition and if the same is denied to them it will be an act of discrimination against the highly qualified Ph.D. Degree holders from such high ranking universities. The academic standards of these foreign universities has been surveyed for determining their ranking World over and this ranking has been given due recognition in the academic and education spheres of the World and no illegality can be found to be attributable upon giving due recognition to the qualification of such foreign universities.
22. It is also a settled principle of law as recognized by the superior courts of Pakistan that where there is a reasonable classification made in a particular matter, this step is itself considered as sufficient in negating the allegations of discrimination. So arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that by allowing additional marks to an advanced learning undergone by Ph.D. Degree holders from top ranking 500 universities of the World is an act of C discrimination has no legal force or factual strength and is repelled. While interpreting the concept of discrimination the superior courts have approved the powers of the authorities in a particular matter of making a reasonable classification of equally placed persons. In this regard the judgments of the honourable , Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as NADEEM KHAN v. BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION PESHAWAR AND ANOTHER (PLD 1993 SC 397), GHULAM MUSTAFA INSARI AND 48 OTHERS v.
GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND OTHERS (2004 SCMR 1903), ALLAH YAR v. GENERAL MANAGER, RAILWAYS HEADQUARTERS LAHORE AND ANOTHER (2001 SCMR 256), DR. TARIQ NAWAZ AND ANOTHER v.
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER (2000 SCMR 1956), MST. ATTIYYA BIBI KHAN AND OTHERS v.
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY OF EDUCATION (MINISTRY OF EDUCATION), CIVIL SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS (2001 SCMR 1161), MEHRAM ALI AND OTHERS v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS (PLD 1998 SC 1445) and ABDUL BAQI AND OTHERS v. MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND OTHERS (PLD 2003 SC .163) may be referred to as the authorities on the subject. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the evaluation criteria as determined by the members of the Committee is discriminatory is not sustainable in the eye of law as it has no legal force.
23. I would now like to analyse the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their arguments. In the reported judgment reported as SHAIKH ZAYED HOSPITAL AND POST GRAUDATE MEDICAL INSTITUTES THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND DEAN AND ANOTHER v. DR. MUHAMMAD SAEED AND ANOTHER (2010, PLC (C.S.) 967) a learned Division Bench of this Court examined the question of appointment of Chairman and Dean of Sheikh Zayed Post Graduate Medical Institute, Lahore which was being administered by a duly constituted Board. This institute was transferred to the administrative control from the Ministry of Health to the Cabinet Division. The post of the Chairman and Dean of the Medical Institute was being filled since the year 1997 by the Prime Minister on the basis of the summary put up by the Cabinet Division, the mode prescribed for filling grade-22 posts. One Professor Dr. Anwar Khan who was a permanent employee of Sheikh Zayed Medical Complex was promoted as Professor and Head of Department of Gastroenterology in grade-21 under the Meritorious Quota Scheme for Professional and Technical Personnel. He was appointed as Chairman/Dean in the year 2003 initially in his own pay and scale but subsequently allowed BPS-21 on substantive basis. The Cabinet Division without adopting any procedure of inviting applications proposed his name for an extension of further three years in the enhanced grade-22. On the expiry of his three years tenure he was re-appointed for second tenure in BPS-22 for three years on 12-7-2006 and third extension was proposed in his tenure by the Cabinet Division to the Prime Minister and the orders of the Prime Minister were solicited in the matter. This course of action was assailed through a writ petition on the, grounds that the appointment of said doctor was against the policy and the law. The writ petition was allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court and the matter came up through an I.C.A. No,32 of 2010 before' a learned Division Bench of Court and in paragraph No,40 it was observed as follows: "Perusal of the appointment process in general and the process of the impugned appointment in the year, 2009, in particular shows that there is no uniformity, transparency, certainty or structure about the process. We have noted that in the absence of Rules and Regulations of the Institute or Rules under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 the process employed is unguided, unplanned, unsystematic, arbitrary, aimless, perfunctory, mechanical, haphazard, discrete and unreasonable.
It appears to us that the process was not geared to, search and select the best man for the post.
Except in the year, 2001, the Board of Governors of the Institute were never consulted, no effort was made for the search of best talent through public advertisement nationally or internationally.
Considering the technical nature of the post, it was essential that the Technical Search Committee should have been constituted by the Institute and the Cabinet Division. Even the role of Establishment Division has been lukewarm, even though the final responsibility rests on the said Division in the matters of appointment under the rules of Business; 1973. Such an unguided and unstructured process of appointment is facially discriminatory as it blocks merit, cripples opportunities and impairs the access of talented doctors of this country to the coveted post of Chairman and Dean of the Institute. Such a loose structure driven on the whims and caprice of a few invites corruption and nepotism. The process of appointment over the years and the one adopted in the year, 2009 is most unsatisfactory to say the least and cannot be sustained. At this stage we wish to make it clear that this decision has no bearing on the credentials and ability of appellant No,2. We are not concerned with the individuals but with the process."
' The Intra-Court Appeal was thus dismissed in the background of peculiar circumstances and facts of the said case. The cited case does not help and support the case of the present petitioners as in the present case the applications have been invited through proper advertisements in the three daily newspapers. A Search Committee was created through a notification by the Chancellor/Governor of the Punjab. A guideline for developing evaluation Criteria was issued by the Higher Education Commission to the Search Committee. The Search Committee comprises well-known educationists having long experience both on the academic as well as on the administrative side of managing and running known educational institutions. The evaluation criteria have also been laid down on the basis of which the candidates have been selected for interview purposes. It is a matter of record that in all 224 applied for the posts of Vice-Chancellors and 89 candidates have been short listed. On the basis of the evaluation criteria, the petitioners did not come up to the mark and they fell short of the merit list and thus only 5 out of the entire class of applicants of 224 who are not included in the short listed 89 candidates have assailed the process of selection through the instant writ petitions. The process of constitution of the Search Committee, through a notification issued by the Chancellor/Governor of the Punjab; guidelines having been provided by the Higher Education Commission and the evaluation criteria fixed for selection of candidates bespeak transparency and a credible mechanism having been evolved in the process.
24. The Indian judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners reported as VIKRAM SINGH AND ANOTHER v. SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD, HARYANA AND OTHERS (1991) (1 SUPREME COURT CASES 686) is a case in which a process for filling the posts of Excise Inspectors in the Excise and Taxation Department was commenced through an interview then a written test and thereafter another interview was prescribed for finalizing the selection of the candidates to be appointed. The matter came up before the honourable Supreme Court of India and it was held that having already conducted the interviews of the candidates and then subjecting them to written tests, there was no justification for holding second interview test by allocating 28.5% of the total marks for the said interview and it was held to be illegal. Similar was the position in the other judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners MOHINDER SAIN GARG v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (1991) (1 SUPREME COURT CASES 662) which also related to the process of appointments of Excise Commissioner of the Punjab in India when candidates were made to appear first in an interview and then they appeared in written tests and were again called upon for interviews and this process and practice was deprecated by the honourable Supreme Court of India.
25. I have also asked the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether he can refer to any of the Search Committees having been constituted in the World which according to the learned counsel can be an example of the functioning of he Search Committee for the selection of candidates for appointment as Vice-Chancellors, the leaned counsel referred to Annex-D at page-32 from the University of Cambridge, the contents of which document have been examined and are reproduced below:-- "Office of Vice-Chancellor: Notice.--- The Council has recently commenced the process of selection of a successor to Professor A.F. Richard whose tenure as Vice-Chancellor will end on 30 September 2010. In accordance with Regulation 1 for the office of Vice- Chancellor (Statutes and Ordinances, p.659), it has appointed an Advisory Committee consisting of the following members:- -- ' Professor F. P. Kelly, CHR Chairman ' Professor W.A. Brown, DAR Dr. S.J. Cowley, SE ' Professor Sir Graeme Davies, CTH Professor R.J. Evans, CAI Professor L.F. Gladden, T Sir Keith 'O'Nions, CLH ' Lord Simon of Highbury, CAI ' Professor Dame Jean Thomas, CTH ' A further notice will, be published in due course to indicate how the Committee will wish to invite views on the appointment from any interested persons and to provide information about the process it will adopt."
' The perusal of the above contents which is a notice to constitute a committee is not of any help to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
26. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that 40 marks have been arbitrarily allocated to the interview portion of the selection process as it caters for a wide uncalled for discretion in the Search Committee for further excluding the eligible candidates is not entertainable. In the first place the petitioners have not reached the stage of interview and they do not have the locus standi to challenge the allocation of 40 marks. In the instant case it is also noted that no written test is conducted and the administrative skills and the educational potentials of the candidates short listed is further to be assessed by the Search Committee finally through an interview to be conducted and there is no law which can be said to have been violated in this respect by allocating 40 marks for the purposes of interviews:
27. Similarly the arguments that the evaluation criteria was fixed after the, receiving of the application for the posts in question ,does not create any bonus point in favour of 'the petitioners tarnishing in any manner the transparent process evolved by the Search Committee for the above purpose. The point of the exclusion of the respective publications of the candidates although looking interesting and impressive on its face value but has no strength in reality as the Search Committee is to use all those publications for assessing the respective eligibility of the candidates during the interview process. It is during this course that the evaluation of those publications is to be made relevant to assess the eligibility of the candidates and since the petitioners were dropped out of the short listed candidates during the earlier evaluation process therefore the stage for the assessm ent of their publications was yet to come up.
28. In view of all the above circumstances I hold that the process initiated, conducted and to be finalized for filling the vacancies in the posts of Vice-Chancellors of the six universities in question does not suffer from any illegality, is on the face of it transparent and is being supervised by a Search Committee comprising well-known educationists of the country which is working under the guidelines of Higher Education Commission and this Court does not find any legal flaw in the course being adopted by the respondents for the purpose. No case for interference having been made by the petitioners in the matter, the instant writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.