IJAZ ANWAR, J. Through the instant Writ Petition, the petitioner has claimed relief to the effect that on acceptance of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to (i) Declare the impugned orders of respondent No.3 dated 18.02.2021 and that of respondent No-4 dated 22.02.2021 being illegal, unlawful, ,arbitrary, unreasonable, without jurisdiction and lawful authority and ab initio void (ii) Set-aside the above referred impugned orders of respondents Nos.3 and 4 being illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, unreasonable, without jurisdiction and/or any lawful authority and ab initio void.
2. The facts of the case are that petitioner being businessman by profession since 1996-97 runs the businesses ranging from hospitality to manufacturing and distribution he, has. also been awarded 'Sitara-e-Imtiaz' by the Government of Pakistan; that petitioner has been awarded ticket by the political party Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam Pakistan to contest in the technocrat category, in the forthcoming Senate Elections 2021, as such the petitioner while fulfilling the eligibility criteria for being elected as member of the Senate of Pakistan filed his nomination forms before respondent No-3 on 13.02.2021 and during process of scrutiny respondent No-3 directed the petitioner to appear before him on 18.02.2021 to provide proofs of his involvement in business as claimed by him, thus, petitioner provided the requisite information, thereafter, respondent No-3 vide order dated 18.02.2021 rejected his nomination papers. Aggrieved therefrom the petitioner filed an Election appeal before respondent No-4 which too was dismissed on 22.02.2021, hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the word "technocrat" cannot be given any restricted meaning. He, in order to bring the experience of the petitioner in terms of the definition assigned to it in the Elections Act, 2017 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"), referred to his degrees and other relevant documents and, according to which, he was involved in the business much prior to completion of his studies. He further argued that in terms of Article 62 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the minimum age provided for election to the seat of Senator is thirty years and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the definition so assigned to "technocrat" in "the Act" is violative of the above provisions of the Constitution. He next argued that discarding the experience of the petitioner before his studies is violation of law. In support of the above contention, he placed reliance on the reported cases titled "Ali Gohar Khan v.
Adnan Khan and 4 others (2010 CLC 1317)" and "Junaid Rehman Ansari and others v. The State and others (PLD 2020 Sindh 158)" and contended that petitioner has the requisite experience along with academic qualification; as such, the order of the learned Election Tribunal dated 22.02.2021 is against the law.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. Petitioner while intending to contest election for the Senate Seat against Technocrat category submitted his nomination form to the Provincial Election Commissioner/Returning Officer, his nomination form was rejected vide order dated 18.02.2021 against which his appeal filed under section 113 of the Elections Act, 2013, was also dismissed by the Election Tribunal vide impugned order 22.02.2021. The only point involved in the instant matter is whether the petitioner qualify the definition given to the technocrat in the Elections Act, 2017?
6. In order to appreciate this issue, it would be relevant to reproduce the definition given to the technocrat in the Elections Act, 2017. Section 2 of Subsection XXXIX is reproduced as under:- "(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;
7. In terms of the above definition, the candidate must have at least 16 years of education recognized by the Higher Education Commission and that he has at least 20 years of experience including a record of achievement at National or International level.
8. We have noted that petitioner has referred to certain document to demonstrate that his experience prior to completion of the relevant education is to be counted towards experience as referred in the definition of technocrat. At the very outset it is clarified that the experience so referred in the definition is to be on high pedestal and not merely running a shop or some small hotel/restaurant at a local area. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Engineer Iqbal Zafar Jhagra and others v. Khalilur Rehman and 4 others (2000 SCMR 250) while commenting upon the definition of technocrat concluded as follow : "We are unable to agree with the above conclusions of the learned Tribunal. 'Technocrat' as defined in the Explanation means a professionally competent person whose professional competence has been recognised 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 field and he fulfils 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. Iqbal Zafar Jhagrah, undountedly held a Bachelor degree in Mechanical Engineering from a recognized University. He is registered as a 'professional engineer' with Pakistan Engineering Council, a statutory body. He remained as the Managing Director of a Private Limited Company which was incorporated in the year 1982-83 and was also registered as No Limit Construction Company with the Pakistan Engineering Council, until 1-1-1996. He was also accorded life membership of Pakistan Engineering Council. No doubt he started his career as an ordinary Site Engineer with a private construction company in 1970,. but within 4 years he joined a well- known nationally and internationally recognized construction company, National Construction Company of Pakistan Ltd. as Senior Engineer. In next two years time he joined in a senior position Saudi Research and Development Corporation (REDEC) and worked with them upto 1981. His release certificate issued by Saudi Research and Development Corporation, Saudi Arabia, shows that he was associated with a number of prestigious building projects in Saudi Arabia in a senior position, After his release from Saudi Research and Development Corporation he set up his construction company which was registered as no limit construction company and he remained its Chief Executive until December, 1996. From the above narrated facts, it can safely be said that lqbal Zafar Jhagra had professional qualification which was nationally recognized. He had acquired a distinctive position in his profession compared to other person having similar professional qualifications. He had also acquired practical experience at a reasonably high level in the specialized area and that he practiced his specialization and adopted it as his principal vocation and calling. The finding of the learned Tribunal that the element of recognition of professional competence in the field of Engineering is altogether missing appears to be the result of non-consideration of evidence on record which fully established that Iqbal Zafar Jhagra was not only registered as a 'Professional" with Pakistan Engineering Council, which is a statutory body, but he was also allowed life membership of the said Council which in our' view amounted national recognition of his status in engineering private company namely M/s. Contech Limited was only a local and insignificant company, does not appear to be correct conclusion as M/s. Contech Limited was registered as No Limited Contractors and executed number of projects, Mails whereof have been filed before the Court which are not disputed. On an overall consideration of the qualifications and experiences of lqbal Zafar Jhagra, we are of the view that Iqbal Zafar Jhagra fulfilled the qualifications of a "Professional" when he was seeking election to the reserved seats in the Senate."
9. Similarly, the Hon'ble Balochistan High Court in case of Islam Hussain v. Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary and 2 others (2018 CLC 820) has clinched the matter once and for all and held that the experience so mentioned in the definition of technocrat is to be counted only after acquiring-the prescribed educational qualification. The larger bench of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Khizar Haider Malik and others v. Muhammad Rafiq Malik and another (1987 SCMR 78), while referring to the definition of word "experience" has held as under:- "The amendment in the Recruitment Rules which is the subject-matter of controversy has already been reproduced. The crucial words therein are "with five years' experience as such".
The word "experience" has the Dictionary meaning (The Oxford English Dictionary Volume-3 Page 430) 'practical demonstration', 'to fulfil in practice' knowledge resulting from actual observations or from what one has undergone."
It thus, clearly follows that wherever experience is provided it is in fact the practical demonstration or to fulfill in practice whatever the knowledge he has got in educational qualification.
10. The division bench of this Court in case of Sanaullah Khan v. Secretary Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 2 others (2019 MLD 781) while considering the two years requisite experience as an advocate held that "the date of enrolment of petitioner with. Bar Council for the purpose of experience as an advocate is 18.5.2015 when he got the license and as such the experience of 2 years as an advocate is to be counted from the said date for eligibility to the post of civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate. The same view was earlier given by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shoukat Ali v. Chairman Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Peshawar and 68 others (2018 PLC (Civil Service) Note-63 Peshawar).
11. In the instant case, petitioner secured his Master degree of Arts and International Relations in the year 2010 from the University of Peshawar, as such if we count this degree for the purpose of experience; petitioner has not yet completed the requisite experience of 20 years in terms of definition of technocrat so given in the Elections Act, 2017. Besides discussion on the second portion of definition of experience which provides "including a record of achievements at National or International Level" will not be relevant in this case, because petitioner has not completed requisite length of experience of 20 years.
12. For the reasons stated above, we are firmly of the view that the petitioner was not eligible for the seat of technocrat in the Senate of Pakistan, and as such his nomination was rightly rejected, we find no infirmity or illegality in the order of Hon'ble Election Tribunal, this petition being bereft of any merit is dismissed in LIMINE.