MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J.---The petitioner Muhammad Abdul Qadir son of Muhammad Ayub was aggrieved of the findings of the Provincial Election Commissioner given while exercising the powers of Returning Officer for the Senate Election 2018 from Balochistan, on 12th February 2018, whereby he rejected his (petitioner's) nomination papers. This order of rejection was appealed before the Tribunal constituted under Section 113 of the Elections Act, 2017 (The Act 2017) for the Balochistan Province, who vide order dated 17th February 2018 sustained the rejection and dismissed the appeal, while holding that the appellant (petitioner) not covered by the term technocrat as defined under the Act, 2017. The findings in appeal resulted in filing of the instant petition.
2. The petitioner questioned both the orders while contending that his academic qualification, and also his experience were not counted properly. That the material placed before the referred to forums was not considered in true sense. That the requirement as set out in clause (xxxix) of Section 2 the Elections Act 2017 neither required that the educational qualification of a person must have nexus to the field in which he had professional experience, thus the decision was with misinterpretation of law. That the fact was overlooked that the degree of Law obtained by him (petitioner), and the knowledge gained thereby was utilized when he act as businessman, and entered into contracts and financial obligations with other parties. That the intent of the Parliament that some seats be reserved in its upper house for eminent professionals who must have 20 years' experience, and also certain standard of educational qualification was misunderstood. The prayer was to set aside the referred to orders, and on acceptance of his nomination papers he be allowed,to contest the Senate Elections, 2018 for the reserved seats of technocrat in Balochistan.
3. On notice the Law Officer of the Provincial Election Commission appeared not only for respondent No,1, but also for respondent No,3, the Election Commission of Pakistan with the statement that he did not intend to file reply, rather would rely on the decision given by the Tribunal. Thus the parties were heard on merit and also on law.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner repeated the stance taken in the petition. During course a numbers of documents were referred to show the experience gained by the petitioner when he (petitioner) started his career in 1994 on completion of his Bachelors. To clarify the required period of education he referred to a degree issued in his favour on remaining successful in Bachelor of Arts in 1994, and the degree of LLB, Part-I, II and III, issued in his name in 1995, 1996 and 1997. It was contended that if counted he had seventeen years education at his credit, thus fulfil the first requirement. As far the second condition the learned counsel stated that he (petitioner) was in business since 1994. In support a certificate issued by his (petitioner's) father Muhammad Ayub describing him (petitioner) the Chief Operating Officer of the United Automobiles for the period 1994 to 2004 was referred. Also a certificate issued by the Bank of Punjab describing the petitioner as sole proprietor of M/s United Autos Corporation New Zarghoon Road, Quetta and maintaining a Current Deposit Account in the Bank since November 1996 to 2008.
5. The learned counsel pressed Article 25 of the Constitution while asserting that the persons with less experience and educational qualification qualified in the other Provinces to contest the election, but he was deprived of his right without any justifiable cause. To address the reason for rejection of the nomination papers that having no nexus with his field of professional education, it was contended that the term experience as used in the definition never meant to require experience in the relevant field, rather the term experience have to be interpreted in its wider meaning consisting of any other field apart from the field in which he qualified in education. He further stated that the subject related to the business also included in the course of LLB, thus he had the relevant knowledge, and his academic qualification have nexus with the business in which he was engaged. The learned counsel relied on: Ihsanul Haq Piracha v. Wasim Sajjad PLD 1986 SC page 200 Dr. Syed Farooq Hassan v. Mumtaz Ahmed Khan 1988 CLC page 578 Dr. Aon Muhammad Khan v. Lt.-Gen. (Retd.) Saeed Qadir PLD 1987 SC page 490
6. In reply the Law Officer of the Commission only stated that he completely relied on the decision given by the Tribunal.
7. In the case in hand the petitioner applied to contest election of the Senate on the seats reserved for technocrat, while pressing to have required educational qualification and also the experience.
He described the work he performed as businessman since year 1997. The petitioner applied to contest the election as technocrat, thus to understand the term as used in the law and as settled by now need deliberation. Section 2 clause (xxxix) The Elections Act 2017 defined the term technocrat as: "Section 2(xxxix)--technocrat means a person who--
(a) holds a degree requiring conclusion of at least sixteen years of education recognized by the Higher Education Commission; and
(b) has at least twenty years of experience including a record of achievement at the national or international level; "
The literal meaning of a Technocrat is an expert in science, engineering etc, who has a lot of power in politics or in industry. While the term Expert as contained in Black's Law Dictionary is with the meaning a person who through education or experience has developed skill or knowledge in a particular subject, so that he or she may form an opinion that will assist the fact finder. In view of the term as contained in the dictionary it clarified that a technocrat would be a person having specified knowledge in education, including the experience developed by skill or knowledge in a particular subject. The experience is the practical knowledge which is always in addition to the academic knowledge. Thus in view of the literal meaning, and also as defined in law a person would fall within the ambit of technocrat only when he has the education in addition to the experience in same discipline.
8. Section 2 clause (xxxix) The Act 2017 consisted of two portions, containing two separate requirements to bring a person within the ambit of Technocrat. The sub-clauses (a) and (b) are not to be read in isolation, rather to be read co-jointly. In view the required academic education recognized by the Higher Education Commission is in addition to the experience of at-least 20 years along with its recognition at national or international level and record of achievement of the same are the mandate of law. In view it could safely be concluded that a candidate contesting the election as technocrat must possess both the qualifications contained in sub-clauses (a) and (b) i,e, the possession of a degree required its conclusion at least 16 years of education coupled with recognition of Higher Education Commission and the twenty years' experience coupled with record of achievement at national or international level.
9. The Honorable Supreme Court while dealing with the issue in case Ihsanul Haq Piracha v. Wasim Sajjad, reported in PLD 1986 SC page-200 held that: "It follows from the above discussion that where profession or professional has been defined, that definition fully governs the situation. Where it does not, and resort has to be had to its ordinary plain meaning then it should be borne in mind that it is "vague and neither static nor rigid" in what it conveys. Having found a place in the Constitution itself it is necessary that it should retain its flexibility and adaptability. The scheme of the Explanation under consideration appears to be to emphasize in Explanation (c) professional qualification, its recognition and experience in a specialized area of knowledge, and practice in that particular specialization. In contra distinction to it there is no mention of qualification in Explanation (b). It talks of professional competence and experience and expertise for administering or managing a unit. Expert has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary as "one who is knowledgeable in specialized field that knowledge being obtained from either education or personal experience one who by habits of life and business has particular skill in forming opinion on subject in dispute". Experience and expertise and absence of use of the word qualification in Explanation (b) emphasizes the practical side rather than the academic. We, therefore, agree with the finding that "a person without professional qualification but who is otherwise professionally competent, which professional competence is nationally or internationally recognized, can become a "technocrat" if he fulfils the other conditions in the definition of technocrat.
The term technocrat further elaborated in the judgment reported in 2000 SCMR page 250, titled as Iqbal Zajfar Jhagra v. Khalilur Rehman. It was held by their Lordships that: 'Technocrat' as defined in the Explanation means a professionally competent person whose professional competence has been recognized either nationally or internationally and he has at least fifteen years of experience and expertise at a level which may not be the top position but should be above the ordinary level. Therefore, a person may not possess a professional qualification but he may still be covered by the above definition of the 'Technocrat' on the basis of his professional competence and expertise in any specialized filed and he fulfills other conditions mentioned in the definition. As against this a "professional" as defined in the Explanation (1) must possess a professional qualification which is recognized either nationally or internationally (ii) is a man of distinction (iii) has practical experience in some specialized area of knowledge at a high level, (iv) and has been practicing in his specialization making it a main source of his vocation or employment."
10. The law by now have been changed, thus to be read in view of the principles already determined. While assessing the only logical conclusion which could be drawn that the experience must be related to the education and the academic qualification obtained by a person who intended to contest the election as technocrat. In view of the settled principle and the conditions as contained in the law the case of the petitioner has to be assessed.
11. The petitioner stated to have a decree of Bachelor of Law after conclusion of seventeen years, thus claimed to have no deficiency to the extent of the requirement as contained in sub-clause (a) of clause (xxxix) of Section 2 the Election Act 2017. He referred the copies of the degree issued in his favour in 1997, when he successfully completed LLB Part-III. He further referred to numbers of documents to show that after obtaining decree of Bachelor of Arts in 1995 he entered into his family business, and continued as such till established his own firm with the name Matracon Pakistan
(Pvt) Limited, and also licensed by the Pakistan Engineering Council for carrying out construction.
He pressed that his experience was to be counted from 1994 when he obtained the Bachelors degree recognized by the Higher Education Commission.
12.The petitioner at the first instance pressed the degree obtained after completion of education of Bachelor of Arts in 1994, from where his experience started, to be assessed on first instance. The requirement of law, a degree obtained on conclusion of at least 16 years of education, if considered, the papers annexed with the petition spelt out the facts that he (the petitioner) appeared in Secondary School Certificate Examination in 1988, while appeared in Intermediate Examination in 1990, and then he done his Bachelor of Arts in 1994. If counted according to the calculation made by the petitioner himself the Bachelor Degree was obtained in 1994, thus covered a period of fourteen years. While the degree of Law obtained in 1997, it was in fact a postgraduate degree. In view the Bachelors of Arts done in 1994 unable to reach the required period of 16 years, thus not benefited the petitioner. As far the degree of LLB was concerned, it was obtained in 1997, if period of experience counted therefrom it would be twenty years in 2017, contrary to the case of the petitioner. For the reason it was rightly held by the Tribunal that accumulative years spent by the appellant in obtaining bachelor degree and LLB degree cannot be termed to fulfills the requirement of clause (a). The appellant failed to produce any decree requiring conclusion at least 16 years of education, that too, recognized by the Higher Education Commission.
13.The second hurdle would be the experience in the relevant field, to cover the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed hard with reference to the papers annexed with the petition, and filed thereafter that the experience of the petitioner consisted of more than 20 years. The papers relied were either in the name of M/s United Auto Corporation or in the name M/s United Automobiles.
According to his own assertion it was his family business, and he was participated therein, thus the experience gained had to be counted in his credit. Though the referred to papers described transaction of supply of vehicles to the Government Departments also, but most of the documents unable to disclose the name of the petitioner, nor able to describe the functions performed by him (petitioner) during all these years. While some of the papers found to contain signatures of the petitioner, if believed, his presence in the referred to business could be proved from 1999. If counted unable to meet with the requirement of 20 years.
14.As far the firm Matracon Pakistan (Pvt) Limited was concerned though the certificate of incorporation also available in the case file with the date of its issuance as 25th August 2004, but unable to contain the name of the petitioner to establish his connection with the Company. Further, reliance was placed on the license issued by Pakistan Engineering Council, which contained its date of issuance as 13th August, 2017. These documents were of less help to the case of the petitioner. It was for the reason that the required experience of 20 years if counted on basis thereof, still found short. The petitioner failed to meet with the first condition of academic qualification obtaining of a degree on conclusion of at least 16 years, also failed to establish the experience obtained on basis of the referred to degree, thus the papers produced and pressed were neither of any help, nor in absence of the required qualification was of any legal consequence.
15.The petitioner strongly objected the findings of the Returning Officer that the experience claimed in the field of business by the petitioner, had no nexus with the field of his professional qualification, was concerned, it had already been determined in the preceding paras that while reading the sub-clauses co-jointly the only logical meaning would be the experience obtained in the relevant field of the professional education he obtained. Admittedly the petitioner claimed his education qualification as of a law graduate: he in fact not pressed his Bachelor Degree in Arts which was with no specialization. Though the learned counsel contended that the petitioner while doing his business deals with clients and consultants, and with third party, and used his educational qualification when entered into contracts, but it remained mere an assertion in absence of necessary details with supporting documents. Admittedly the petitioner obtained a degree in law in 1997, according to his own assertion he remained engaged in business of supply of vehicles, and now he was doing business of construction. If believed it would not improve his case, as it has no nexus with the discipline in which he obtained the degree. As far his dealings in legal and contractual matters on behalf of the Matracon Pakistan (Pvt) Limited was concerned, also unable to meet the requirement of twenty years of experience, as the firm was registered on 25th August 2004.
16.In view the Returning Officer was correct in its findings; the experience as claimed prima facie has no nexus with his contractual or professional education i,e, Law, while the Tribunal in detail deals with all the issues before it and arrived to a correct decision. No illegality or irregularity pointed out in both the orders which resulted in deprivation of the petitioner from his some fundamental right, thus needed exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court and to reverse the findings of the referred to forums. For the reasons the petition is dismissed.