' This writ petition involves a contest between graduate Engineers and Diploma-holdeRs, Both are employed by the C.D.A., Islamabad. The petitioners graduates feel aggrieved of promotion of the respondents/Diploma-holders to the BPS 18 as it impedes their service prospects besides causing supersession in some cases.
2. It is contended that since they are not recognized by respondent No,2, namely the Pakistan Engineering Council, to act either as professional or consulting Engineers, they cannot take up the work of this nature and that without such authorization, they are liable even criminally under section 27 of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976. In fact, their very employment by the C.D.A. is challenged to be wholly illegal, without lawful authority and in violation of the said Act or the relevant Rules. It is claimed that at best they are given promotion at the ratio of 20 per cent up to BPS 17 and that in no case, they are allowed to be promoted to BPS 18. For this reason, the recent promotion of respondents Nos. 3 to 5 to BPS 18 allowed on 21-3-1984 was assailed to be against law and prejudicial to the petitioners' interest.
3. The Law Officer was called and even counsel for the respondents C.D.A. and the Engineering Council appeared at the motion stage.
4. It was urged on behalf of the C.D.A. that by virtue of section 28(b) of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976, the Act had no application whatsoever to Diploma-holders qualifying from such Institutions as were specified by the Council through a notification and that it was entirely erroneous on the part of the petitioners to knock them out by maintaining that they were not licensed by the Council as such professionals. They were claimed to have been trained in the Institutions specified by the Council under the said provision and hence nothing in the Act was to affect their right to execute or undertake any work for which they had been imparted training.
Conversely, emphasizing this contention, it was argued that the Act applied only to qualified engineers for whom the Engineering Council had to maintain a register under section 16, issue a certificate of registration and control their conduct in various manneRs, In regard to the ratio proportion of promotions awarded to the respondents, the plea was that it was entirely a domestic affair for the employer to deal with and if at all, it may be a violation of the Rules for which initially the remedy has to be sought with the employer itself. In other words bringing outright the writ was shown to be not permissible.
5. Mr.Ansari for the petitioners, in reply, maintained that since the respondents were arrogating to themselves the functions of engineers under the respondent-CDA employment, they could not have possibly been taken out of the mischief of the Act as in any such event, the consequences might be to accord them a better status than regular graduates. According to him, this could not be the intent as their mushroom growth was likely to create confusion and chaos adversely affecting the better qualified personnel. He submitted that besides leaving them uncontrolled by any instrument of law, affording them promotions up to BPS 18 vis-a-vis the graduates was a stance adding much further to their non-descript status. Lastly, he described them only to be technicians as were not entitled by virtue of their inferior qualification to act as engineers etc., worth the BPS 18.
6. I do not think the provision of section 28(b) referred to above leaves any doubt as to the application of this Act to the Diploma-holders getting training from the Institutions as are specified by the council. The only job assigned to the Council by virtue of this Act is to notify such Institutions to impart training to them. Beyond that, the Council does not seem to have any authority over them. Once it is established that they come out of such notified Institutions, nothing in the Act will affect their right to execute or undertake the work for which they were trained. It becomes entirely immaterial to style them as technicians or otherwise. The sophisticated provisions of the Act of maintaining a register for graduates or issuing license to them or controlling their conduct etc., will have no relevance in their case. Perhaps, the idea is that their very Diploma will be a certificate of authorization to act as such trained personnel without being any more amenable to the extensive control of the Engineering Council. Further, the Diploma being admittedly on inferior qualification did not call for strict control as may be intended for graduates and that is why they are left open in the market "to execute or undertake" such work for which they may have been trained. Giving them promotion is a matter of policy or at best breach of certain Rules and the same may not be strict sense justiciable. It may assume the shape of a relationship governed by the principle of Master and Servant, so that if the employer feels satisfied to get work out of a Diploma-holder, he may give him any emoluments. That should not be a cause of grouse for the petitioners-engineers, It was not shown if the respondent C.D.A. was maintaining any percentage in this behalf or the promotion of the respondents was in violation thereof. The remedy for any such grievance may not be a writ outright. Other avenues have first to be exhausted.
7. For these reasons, I see no substance in the claim of the petitioners and dismiss the writ petition in limine.
Writ . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.