The petitioner who claims to hold LLB Degree has filed the captioned Constitutional Petition primarily praying that he be considered eligible to participate in the selection process for appointment as Deputy District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the lis at hand are that apparently on the requisition of the Punjab Government, Respondent No, 4 Punjab Public Service Commission on 7.8.2011 issued advertisement in the Press soliciting applications for appointments of DDA and ADA. The qualification/eligibility as specified in the advertisement relevant for adjudication of the instant writ petition reads as under: "LLB or equivalent qualification (with 50% aggregate marks) recognized by the Higher Education Commission having four years active practice as an Advocate."
3. While it is the case of the petitioner that holding of LLB Degree with the requisite work experience is sufficient to become eligible to be considered for the appointments in question.
On the other hand it is case of the respondents that in addition to LLB Degree, petitioner must have also obtained 50% aggregate marks therein. In the above context, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the condition of 50% aggregate marks would be applicable only to those having equivalent qualification and not the LLB Degree. In the alterative it is contended that for similar posts in the Prosecution Service of the Government of the Punjab of the same grade to appear before the same course, no such condition has been specified, hence, the condition is discriminatory.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General Punjab as well as the learned counsel for the respondents have controverted the contentions being raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is further contended that the word 'or' has been used in a conjunctive rather than disjunctive sense in the eligibility criteria reproduced ibid. In fact it is case of the respondents that word 'or' should be read as 'and'.
5. Heard. Record perused. The word 'or' came up for interpretation before this Court in the case reported as 2002 CLC 54 Master Said Vs. Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, District Judge Jhang and others, wherein the learned Judge of this Court after quoting passages from treatise on the subject by Maxwell and Crawford held as under: "From the above quoted passages from the above celebrated treatises on the interpretation of Statutes, it is evident that the words 'and' and 'or' are interchangeable. However, in ordinary uses the word 'and' is conjunctive and the word 'or' is disjunctive. But to implement the legislative intent, it may become imperative to read 'and' in place of the conjunction 'or' and vice versa. This cannot be done if the meaning of the relevant provision of the statute is clear or if the above construction will operate to change the meaning of the law."
6. In the case reported as 1993 M LD 399 (Karachi) Muhammad Sana Ullah Vs Allah Din it was held as under: "The use of word 'or' signifies a disjunctive sense and it cannot be read as 'and' unless of course the context provides so. It, therefore, follows that the needs of the 'spouse' or 'children' could be independent from the needs of appellant"
7. Similar view was expressed in the case reported as 1986 CLC 1784 (Election Tribunal) Hakim Ali Bhatti Vs. Qazi Abdul Hakim and others.
8. Examining the qualification criteria at hand reproduced ibid in the light of the aforesaid judgments leads to an irresistible conclusion that word 'or' in the facts and circumstances of the case has been used in disjunctive sense. A candidate must either have LLB Degree or the equivalent qualification. It is nobody's case that such candidates must have an LLB Degree as well as equivalent qualification. Said equivalent qualification has been subjected to two riders, firstly, recognition by the Higher Education Commission and secondly the 50% aggregate marks. Latter conditionality cannot travel beyond the disjunctive 'or' especially as two alternate separate and distinct qualifications have been set forth. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the condition of 50% aggregate marks as prescribed is applicable only to the equivalent qualification recognized by the Higher Education Commission and not the candidates having the LLB Degree.
Consequently, by accepting this petition it is held that the candidates possessing LLB Degree with requisite active practice are eligible to be considered for appointment even if they had not succeeded in obtaining 50% aggregate marks.
Petition accepted in terms articled ibid.