' CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, J.--- The captioned petition for leave to appeal has been filed to assail the judgment of the High Court dated 9-7-2012 whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No,1 has been accepted by declaring the hand out dated 21-2-2012 as without lawful authority and the Public Service Commission has been directed to recommend her name against the advertised post. The Government has also been directed to appoint her on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission.
2. Necessary facts for disposal of the petition are that the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission, invited applications for appointment to the post of Instructor Plant Protection Officer B-17, in Agriculture Husbandry, (ESMA), Department on open merit from the eligible candidates.
Respondent No,1 including other candidates, applied for the post and after test and interview, one Waqas Abdullah, respondent No,7 herein, has been recommended by Public Service Commission.
Respondent No,1 challenged the handout of Public Service Commission, to the extent of petitioner herein and respondent No,7, through a writ petition in the High Court on the ground of lacking of the required statutory qualification. The petition was resisted by the respondents therein. The Secretary concerned filed written statement on behalf of official respondents wherein he averred that respondent No,1 has not attained the merit position against the advertised post. He also negated the stand of respondent No,
1. The petitioner herein, also filed a separate written statement through which he raised many objections to the maintainability of writ petition. The High Court, after hearing both the parties, accepted the writ petition in the manner indicated hereinabove, in para 1.
The petitioner has challenged the propriety of the judgment of the High Court through the instant petition for leave to appeal.
3. Mr. Humayun Nawaz Khan Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, after detailed discussion of facts, mainly stressed in his arguments on the point that except one university, in all the universities, no degree with the nomenclature of Plant Protection, is awarded. The Plant Protection is one of the subjects included in B.Sc. Agriculture Degree. He forcefully relied upon the detail of curriculum of B.Sc. Agriculture, thus, submitted that the Plant Pathology is actually Plant Protection and it is included in the petitioner's syllabus in B.Sc. (Hons) Agriculture. Thus, the petitioner possess the required qualification. He has also referred to some notifications, according to which, the holders of B.Sc. Agriculture Degrees are appointed against the post of Instructors. He submitted that the impugned judgment of the High Court seriously suffer from illegality and infirmity which has been passed without application of judicial mind, therefore, is not maintainable.
While, on query of the Court, whether there is any certificate of equivalence of the degree from the Higher Education Commission, he replied that the petitioner could not succeed in obtaining such certificate. However, the concerned university has verified that this degree includes the subject of Plant Protection, therefore, the same is equal to the degree of Plant Protection, thus, the certificate of equivalence from the Higher Education Commission, is not necessary.
4. Conversely, Kh. Muhammad Nasim Advocate, the learned counsel for caveator respondent No,1, strongly opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner, despite availing the opportunity has failed to produce the certificate of equivalence from the Higher Education Commission which is sole authority in this regard. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that some persons holding the qualification of B.Sc. Have been appointed as Instructor Plant Protection, is totally without substance as none, without proper qualification has been appointed against the post of Instructor, Plant Protection. In this case, disputed post is of Instructor Plant Protection and according to rules the requisite qualification for the post is B.Sc. Agriculture in Plant Protection. He further submitted that mere inclusion of the subject of Plant Pathology and Entomology in any syllabus, does not amount to the degree of Plant Protection. He also submitted that it is totally baseless argument of counsel for the petitioner that except university of Peshawar, no other university is awarding the degree of B.Sc. Agriculture in Plant Protection as such on the basis of such argument, the requirement of statutory rules cannot be ignored. He placed reliance upon the cases titled Raja Muhammad Sohrab v. AJ&K Government and others, reported as 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1138 and Muhammad Resham Khan v. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government and others, reported as [2002 SCR 527].
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record made available. The concerned authority requisitioned the post of Instructor Plant Protection B-17. The Public Service Commission, after advertisement of the post recommended one Waqas Abdullah against the said post and placed the petitioner and respondent No,1 as the alternate candidates.
6. Respondent No,1, feeling aggrieved challenged these recommendations through a writ petition on the ground that under rules, the petitioner and pro forma-respondent No,7 are not eligible as they are lacking the prescribed qualification. According to rules and advertisement, the required qualification for the post is B.Sc. (Hops), in Agriculture Plant Protection whereas except respondent No,1, none of the contesting candidates have the required degree.
7. A perusal of the advertisement clearly reveals that the post of Instructor Plant Protection, B-17 has been advertised and the required qualification is mentioned as "B.Sc. (Hons) Agriculture in Plant Protection". The departmental rules also contain the name of the post as Instructor Plant Protection, B-17 and the nomenclature of the required educational/degree qualification is B.Sc. (Hons)
Agriculture Plant Protection. The perusal of statutory rules also reveals that the post of Instructors are of different nomenclatures, like Instructor, Agronomy, Agriculture Engineering, Soil Science, Horticulture and Plant Protection. The prescribed qualification for every post is according to its nomenclature. Thus, it is clear that the post of Instructor when carries specific nomenclature, the required qualification in the statutory rules is according to their nomenclatures. The different nomenclatures of the posts and degrees also indicates that the B.Sc. (Hons) Agriculture degree is awarded in different disciplines. Thus, according to spirit of rules, B.Sc. (Hons) degree cannot be substituted with the B.Sc. Agronomy, Agriculture Engineering, Soil Science, Horticulture or Plant Protection. According to rules, these are separate and distinct degrees.
8. It is the golden principle of law that the Courts have to interpret the law as it exists on the statute book. Nothing can be added, subtracted or even substituted. The enforced statutory rules clearly speak of the qualification for the post of Instructor Plant Protection i.e "B.Sc. (Hons), Agriculture Plant Protection". The petitioner has failed to substantiate his stand by production of a certificate of equivalence from the Higher Education Commission which according to law is the sole authority to C determine the status and equivalence of the degrees. Therefore, in absence of any such opinion of the concerned authority, we are unable to substitute our own opinion or to substitute any of the terms existed in the statutory rules. This view finds support from the judgments of this Court handed down in the cases titled Muhammad Resham Khan v. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government and others, reported as [2002 SCR 527]; Dr. Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmed v. Azad Government and others, reported as [2002 PLC (C.S.) 1398], and Raja Muhammad Sohrab v. AJ&K Government and others reported as 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1138.
' In the case titled Muhammad Resham Khan v. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government and 6 others, reported as [2002 SCR 527], this Court held that "it is settled proposition of law that the Courts are meant to interpret the law; they are not supposed to add or subtract anything in the relevant provision of law"
' Same like in the case titled Dr. Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmed v.Azad Government and others, reported as 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1398 while dealing with the departmental statutory rules, it has been observed that "the rules relating to service matter of appellant and respondent No,6 may be defective in so many aspects but we have to interpret the same as they are and not as they should be."
' In the case titled Raja Muhammad Sohrab v. AJ&K Government and 6 others. Reported as 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1138 while dealing with the golden principle of interpretation of statute, this Court observed that "It is settled principle of law that in order to interpret the provisions of a statute or rules, the Courts are not supposed to add or subtract anything in the relevant provisions."
9. If the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted. It means that the Courts can substitute the term of Plant Protection with the Plant Pathology and Plant Entomology which in my opinion is not a correct approach. The substitution or amendment in the law is duty of the concerned legislative body or authority and not the IE Court. According to celebrated principle, the concerned authorities have IF to act according to enforced law.
10. In view of the facts of this case, the impugned judgment of the High Court appears to be quite consistent with the principle of law. The petitioner has failed to succeed in making out a case for grant of leave. Thus, leave is refused.
' As the petition for leave to appeal has been dismissed, consequently, the order issued on application for interim relief by this Court on 23-7-2012 stands recalled.