This consolidated judgment shall dispose of instant writ petition along with following connected writ petition as common questions of law and effects involved in these cases: W.P. No. 2162 of 2019 titled Sohail Ayaz Muhammad v. Baha- ud-Din Zakariya University through its Vice Chancellor Chairman, Selection Board/Chairman, Syndicate, Multan and others
2. Through instant petition, petitioner has sought direction from this Court for the respondent-university to issue notification with regard to the award of Ph.D. Scholarship on the topic of 'Faculty Development', awarded by the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, specifically for respondent-university, out of which certain scholarships were allocated to the Institute of Business Administration and unanimously approved by the Syndicate in its meeting dated 08.12.2018 and further taken note by this Court in 'order dated 20.12.2018, passed in W.P. No. 10131 of 2016, filed by present petitioner, with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, . respectfully prayed that this petition may graciously be accepted and the writ may be issued to direct respondent-university to issue notification with respect to the award of Ph.D. Scholarship on the topic of Faculty Development awarded by the then Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Reza Gillani, specifically for B.Z.
University, out of which certain scholarships were allocated to the Institute of Business Administration and approved by the Syndicate unanimously in its meeting dated 08.12.2018 and further taken note by this august Court in order dated 20.12.2018, in W.P. No. 10131/2016 titled as "Jawairia Abbas vs. B.Z.U. etc." at the earliest and the inaction on behalf of the Registrar Baha-ud- Din Zakariya University in that behalf may be declared as illegal, and without lawful authority in not issuing the notification for award of scholarship of Rs. 10- Million since the date of Selection Board Meeting held on September, 2016 and further sanctioned by the syndicate. It is also prayed that a notice may also be issued to the respondent/officials of the respondent- university as to why they shall not be proceeded with under Article 203 read with the provisions of Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2004 for not complying with the order dated 20.12.2018 and also the minutes of the Syndicate meeting held on 08,12.2018."
Through connected petition, petitioner , namely Sohail Ayaz Muhammad has sought direction from this Court for Respondents 1 to 4 to issue award letters for Ph.D. Foreign Scholarship, with the following prayer: "In the above mentioned circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grace instant constitutional petition with acceptance and to declare the act of omission of the Respondents No. 1 to 4 issuing award letters for Ph.D. Foreign Scholarships to the petitioner against the law and facts, without jurisdiction, without lawful authority, unconstitutional, capricious, fanciful and based on mala fide as well as miscarriage of justice. The direction to the Respondents No. 1 to 4 may be issued to issue the award letter to the petitioner as early as possible within a stipulated period."
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that despite unanimous approval and sanction by the Syndicate in its meeting dated 08.12.2018, there is inaction on the part of respondent-authorities to award Ph.D. Scholarship in favour of petitioner, which is absolutely unwarranted in law. He further submits that the only plea adopted by respondent-authorities is that respondent-Higher Education Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad ("HEC") is not agreeing with the said approval/sanction. He adds that petitioner has been subjected to gross discrimination in the matter in violation of the equality clause contained in Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic; Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("the Constitution"). In the end, he submits that petitioner is entitled to award of Ph.D. Scholarship.
4. ciences ("IMS") against a permanent post in BS-19 w.e.f. 27.04.2015. He further contends that though the then Prime Minister of Pakistan announced 100 Ph.D. Foreign Scholarships in various disciplines including Psychology, Business Administration and Commerce, however, after petitioner's recommendation for award of scholarship by the Selection Board, Syndicate did not approve the same in said disciplines due to direction of respondent-HEC. He maintains that pursuant to order dated 01.11.2018, passed by learned Division Bench of this Court, the House unanimously approved the recommendations of Selection Board under C.W, Item No. 05 and awarded scholarships to present petitioner along with others and in this regard, respondent university has already written to HEC, however, decision of HEC is still awaited. In the end, he contends that without direction of HEC, respondent-university cannot issue the award letters to any one of the candidates.
Likewise, learned Legal Advisor -for respondent-HEC submits that the scholarship awarded by the respondent- university through its Selection Board and Syndicate was questioned by the respondent-HEC on various grounds and it has been categorically maintained that there had been discrepancies found in such award of the scholarships. He further-contends that under the provisions of the Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University Act, 1975 ("the Act of 1975") and the calendar thereto, the minutes of Syndicate could only be termed as final if there would be no observation by any member of the Syndicate. He adds that in the minutes of meeting held on 08.12.2018, it has categorically been stated that the scholarships are being awarded but due to certain observation of the HEC, same are subject to the final approval of HEC. In the end, he argues that no discrimination whatsoever is being caused to petitioner.
5. Arguments heard. Available record perused.
6. Perusal of record reveals that 6/2018 meeting of Syndicate was held on 08.12.2018, wherein the petitioner appeared through her father as Special Attorney . Her matter was placed before the Syndicate at Item No. 31 and the House considered her case. The relevant part of minutes is reproduced as under: "The House further discussed other Court cases i.e. WP No. 173/2017 titled "Rabia Nayyab vs. BZU, etc.", WP No. 3030/2017 titled "Ruqia Safdar Bajwa and another vs. BZU, etc." and WP No. 10131/2016 titled "Mrs. Javaria Abbas vs. BZU Multan" relating to the under-discussion Scholarships and the Registrar apprised the House that Writ Petition No. 3030/2017 was transmitted to the Chancellor by the Hon'ble Court, Multan Bench, Multan vide order dated 02.05.2018 with the direction to decide the matter and the case has been fixed for hearing before the Chancellor on 10.12.2018.
The House heard the following parties or their authorized representatives who were called and presented in compliance with the order dated 01.11.2018 passed by the Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench vide Letter No. 15495 dated 04.12.2018:- Sr.
No.Name of Parties/Representative Status of Scholarship
1. Sidra Liaqat Herself Recommended for awardee of Scholarship in Psychology
2. Javaria Ahmed Herself Recommended for awardee of Scholarship in A Business dministration3. Huma Jamshed.. Herself
4. Muhammad Munir Himself
5. Sohail Ayaz Muhammad Himself
6. Jawaria Abbas Mian Abbas Ahmed
7. Ammara Akram Mr. Saifullah Recommended for awardee of Scholarship in Commerce
8. Ruqia Safdar BajwaMs. Irum Awan Recommended for awardee of Scholarship in Psychology
9. Adeel AkhtarDr. Shakil AkhtarRecommended for awardee of Scholarship in Commerce 10. Saifullah Himself They themselves or through their representatives, presented their contentions before the House and they contended that they applied against the advertisement for award of scholarship and appeared before the Selection Board and after interview recommended for award of scholarships but still award letters are not issued to them due to want of approval of the Syndicate/Competent Authority. They requested to issue their award letters.
The House also noted that Ms. Rabia Nayyab/Petitioner who filed Writ Petition No. 173/2017 against the award of scholarship in the discipline of Psychology, not appeared before the House while she was called upon to appear before the Syndicate vide Letter No. 15495. dated 04.12.2018. Petitioner was also called on her cell No, but she did not attend the call which revealed that she had nothing to defend her case while on the other hand, scholarship awardees as recommended by the Selection Board and In some cases duly approved by the Syndicate are waiting for a long time for issuance of their award letter(s) to pursue their higher studies.
The House discussed all aspects of the case right from the beginning to the end in detail and after deliberation, unanimously decided to approve the recommendations made by the Selection Board in its 05/2016 held on 28th & 29th June 2016 under item No. 02,03,13 & 14 as well as recommendations made by the Selection Board in its 06/2016 meeting held on 3rd & 4th September 2016 under C.W. item No. 05, and awarded scholarships to the following:- Sr.
No.Name of Candidates Discipline
1. Ms. Farast Kanwal Psychology
2. Ms. Ruqia Safdar Bajwa Psychology
3. Ms. Sidra Liaqat Psychology
4. Mr. Adeel Akhtar Business Administration
5. Ms. Javeria Ahmad Business Administration
6. Ms. Huma Jamshed Business Administration
7. Mr. Saif Ullah Commerce
8. Ms. Ammara Akram Commerce
9. Ms. Javeria Abbas Business Administration
10. Mr. Sohail Ayyaz Muhammad Business Administration
11. Mr. Muhammad Munir Business Administration
12. Ms. Bushra Baig Business Administration The House directed the Registrar office to answer the queries/ objections of Higher. Education Commission regarding some of the scholarship that were raised in Performance Review Meeting held on 13/10/2016 in HEC. Further the House requested the HEC to respond within 15 days so that the scholars may proceed and further lapse in time may be saved."
7. It transpires from the above that after interview, petitioner was recommended for award of Scholarship and the House unanimously decided to approve the recommendations made by Selection Board in its meeting held on 28th & 29th June, 2016 as well as recommendations made by the Selection Board in its meeting held on 3rd & 4th September, 2016 under C.W. Item No. 05 and awarded scholarship to the afore-referred candidates.
8. Thereafter , respondent-university placed minutes before learned Division Bench of this Court on 20.12.2018 and learned Division Bench passed the following order: "Copy of minutes of meeting held on 08.12.2018 by virtue of which, approval has been given to award scholarship to the petitioner , have been submitted.
2. In view of above, grievance of the petitioner has been redressed, therefore, this writ petition is disposed of."
9. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent-HEC submits that HEC has recorded following discrepancies/observations in the selection process of the petitioners, which are intimated to the respondent- university vide Letter No 2(873)/HEC/M&E/2009 dated 27.02.2019.
Sr.
No.Name Comments
3. Ms. Javeria Abbas (Business Administration)* The candidate was not recommended by the Selection Board in its meeting held on June 28-29, 2016. * The Selection Board recommended the same candidate in its meeting held on Sept 3-4, 2016 without any evaluation/Interview
4. Mr. Sohail Ayyaz, Business Administration* The candidate was not recommended by the Selection Board in its meeting held on June 28-29, 2016. * The Selection Board recommended the same candidate in its meeting held on Sept 3-4, 2016 without any evaluation/Interview
10. There appears to be no legal justification in not extending the same relief to petitioner as has been given to the other candidates. So far as the argument of learned counsel for respondent-university that respondent-HE C has to approve funds and can review the decisions, therefore, recommendations were not finalized, is concerned, suffice it to say that equal treatment is to be given to the similarly placed persons.
The case of petitioner appears to be at par with those who have already been granted the same relief.
11. Needless to observe here that any discrimination in the procedure while dealing with the citizen shall offend Article 25 of Constitution, whereas, the above-referred treatment meted out to petitioner is highly discriminatory in nature while jeopardizing the rights of the petitioner. As a whole, the principle on which the doctrine of equality is founded, is that persons in similar circumstances must be governed by the same laws/rules/regulations. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that other similarly placed employees could not be discriminated without any cogent reason, by violating the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution and it was duty of respondents to protect fundamental rights of petitioner enshrined in Article 9 of the constitution. Reliance is placed upon Engineer Naraindas and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2002 SCMR 82), Tehsil Municipal Administration, Rahimyar Khan and others v.
Hanif Masih and others (2008 SCMR 1058) and Ejaz Akbar Kasi and others v. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and others (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 22).
12. In view of the above, instant petition, along with connected petition, is disposed of with the direction to respondent-university to conclude the matter with the approval of its statutory body , within a period of thirty days and if the case of petitioners is at par with those to' whom scholarship has been awarded, same treatment ,should be granted to the petitioners as well by the respondent-HEC.