Through this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to Respondent No, 1 to appoint her on the post of Lecturer (Deaf Field) BS-17.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner. applied for the post of 'Lecturer (Deaf Field) BS-17' through proper channel with reference to the advertisement issued by Respondent No, 1.
Provisional interview call letter was also issued to the petitioner after fulfilling the requirements prescribed by Respondent No,
1. The petitioner being second on the merit list was recommended to the Provincial Government for the post of Lecturer (Deaf Field) on contract basis for five years in the Punjab Special Education Department on 29.4.2016. Subsequently Respondent No, 2 forwarded the appointment of selected candidates including the petitioner to Respondent No, 1 by stating that selected candidates are not qualified for the post as per rules and regulations of Special Education Department. The petitioner approached Respondent No, 1 through application dated 24.8.2016 stating that her degree of Masters in Special Educatiori is equivalent to the degree of M. Ed Special Education but till date no reply has been given by Respondent No,
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was selected and appointed to the post of Lecturer (Deaf Field) after fulfilling the requirements/criteria, hence she cannot be denied the post.
3. Report and parawise comments have been filed on behalf of Respondents No, 1 and 2. Learned Law Officer argued that as per the Service Rules the required qualification for the post of Lecturer (Deaf Field) was MA (Special Education) whereas Respondent No, 1 recommended the candidates for the post who possess degree of M.Ed Special Education. Respondent No, 1 considered the request of the Administrative Department and revised its earlier recommendation through letter dated 15.8.2016. The recommendation of the petitioner was also withdrawn along with two other recommendees. Learned Law Officer further submitted that Qualification Equivalence Determination Committee ("QEDC") vide its minutes dated 16.5.2016 has also decided the issue and declared that M.A Special Education is not equivalent to M.Ed (Visually Impaird). Therefore in the light of QEDC's decision the petitioner was not eligible for the said post.
4: Heard and record perused.
5. The basic grievance of the petitioner is that she possesses the degree of M.Ed which is equal to .MA (Special Education) degree , which should be considered for the post, of Lecturer (Deaf Field).
The petitioner has relied upon letter dated 23.1:2017 issued by the Higher Education Department to show equivalence of MA (Special Education) with M.Ed. Special Education. The letter of 23.1.2017 reads as follows: The Higher Education Commission recognizes Master of Education in Special Education degree held by you from University of Education, Lahore after 'Post Graduate Diploma in Teaching the Deaf/15-year schooling' as equivalent to corresponding Master's degree in the relevant field involving 16,years of schooling.
The aforesaid letter of 23.1.2017 issued by the Higher Education Department does not provide that M.Ed. Special Education as equal to MA (Special Education) hence cannot be applied, to this case.
Furthermore the degree of MA (Special Education) cannot be equated with M.Ed. Special Education as per the QEDC since MA (Special Education) is a four year degree programme and has 66 credit hours whereas M.Ed Special Education is one year degree programme and has only 36 credit hours.
6. Under the circumstances, no case for interference is made out. Petition is dismissed.