1. ORDER Saad Saood Jan (Chairman).--The appellant is not serving or holding any post in connection with the affairs of the province, but is an employee of the Chief Administrator of Evacuee Properties which is a body corporate under the Waqf Property Ordinance, 1959. As such, he is not a civil servant within the meaning of Clause (b) of section 2, Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act, 1974 The present appeal to this Tribunal is therefore, misconceived and is hereby dismissed in limine. 1975* PLC [C.S.T.] 102 [Administrative Tribunal Punjab] Present 1 Saad Saood Jan, Chairman, Ashfaq Ali Khan and Khalid Farooq Akbar, Members MUNAWAR ALI versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and others , decided on 20th November 1974. West Pakistan Technical Education Department (Gazetted Posts) Recruitment Rules. 1966-- -- ---- Appendix A (Grade I)--Professional and technical experience--To run from date of starting teaching service as Instructor and not merely from date of acquiring prescribed qualification - Appellant being M. Sc. Physics appointed as Instructor in Radio Electronics on 22-3-1960 subsequently acquiring Fellowship of Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology equivalent to AM1E in 1968--Experience in technical education held, countable from 23-3-1960 and not from 1968 onwards. [pp. 104, 10 S\A&B Appellant in person. A. G. Humayun, Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1. Order Saad Saood Jan (Chairman).--The appellant has invoked section 4 of the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act of 1974 against notification made by the Director Technical Education Punjab dated 30-7-1974 by which the appellant has been reverted from the post of Principal, Government Polytechnic Institute, Sialkot to the post of Head Teacher Trainer. The appellant prays that the said notification be set aside and that it be declared that on the due day he possessed the basic requirements qualifying him for promotion to the post of a Principal. It is further prayed that the Department of Technical Education Punjab be directed to appoint the appellant to the post of Principal. The appellant entered Government service as Demonstrator in Science at the Army Apprentices School, Rawalpindi on 1-4-1937. On the basis of his possessing an M.Sc. Degree in Physics he became a Lecturer in Physics at the Govemment College, Sargodha on 19-5-1958. On 22-3-1960 he became an Instructor in Radio Electronics at the Government Polytechnic Institute, Rawalpindi. Subsequently he was promoted through the stages of Instructor in Radio Electronics, Senior Instructor in Radio Electronics, Teacher Trainer at a Government Polytechnic Institute, Head Teachers Trainer at and Vice Principal finally to the rank of a Principal, Govemment Polytechnic Institute oh 17-1-1969. He functioned in this rank till the issuance of the impugned notification on 30-7-1974 when he was reverted to the post of Head Teachers Trainer, The appellant is governed by the West Pakistan Technical Education Department (Gazetted Posts)
2. Recruitment Rules of 1966. The qualifications for the post of Principal as stated in Appendix A (Grade I) at serial No. 2 of these Rules are reproduced below: (/) (a) Second Class Engineering Degree from a recognised University or equivalent qualifications from a recognized Institute OR (b)
3. Diploma from a recognised Institute with AMIE obtained through examination, or equivalent qualifications from a recognised Institute; OR (c) M.Sc. (Physics/Chemistry/Chemical Technology) from a recognised University with AMIE obtained through examination or equivalent qualifications from a recognised Institute; and (ii) Thirteen years professional or Technical Education experience or both in Engineering/Industrial field and/or Technical Education. It is thus apparent that for his appointment as Principal besides being an M.Sc, in Physics, the appellant had to have the qualification of A. M. I. E. obtained through examination or equivalent qualification from a recognised Institute. 1a addition to these qualifications it was also necessary that the appointee to the post of Principal should have nine years professional or technical education experience or both in Engineering/Industrial Field and/or Technical Education. According to his own statement the appellant Mr. Munawwar Ali continued to be only an M.Sc, in Physics till May, 1967 when he became a Fellow of the Melbourne Institute of Technology of Australia in the discipline of Communication Engineering. The Fellowship of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology is equivalent to A. M. I. E. which in its turn is equivalent to an Engineering Degree. We were shown a letter dated the 29th April 1969 from the Secretary West Pakistan Public Service Commission stating that on advice from the Equivalent Committee of West Pakistan University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore the Fellowship of the Royal Malbourne Institute of Technology, Australia has been accepted as being equivalent to AMIE (Pak) for the purpose of recruitment against the posts specifically earmarked for Radio/Electronics Engineers. In the parawise comments made on behalf of the Government Department at No. 2 (ii) this equivalence has been admitted. It will thus be seen that it was in May, 1967 that the appellant became completely qualified to hold the post of the Principal of a Polytechnic Institute. The decisive issue in the case consists in the intrepretation of the expression "9 years professional and technical experience." It has been vehemently contended by the appellant that he possesses more than 9 years experience of technical education which is the requirement of the rule. According to him his valid experience should count from 22-3-1960 which is the date on which he started functioning as Instructor in Radio Electronics. From his point of view the fact that at that time he was only an M.Sc, in Physics and did not possess any other technical education is not relevant for the purpose of gaining experience. He was working as an Instructor in a technical subject in a Technical Training Institution, and as such he was gaining experience of technical education. On the other hand, the respondents are- equally emphatic in their assertion that the appellant started gaining the relevant experience of technical education only after he acquired his technical qualification which according to them was in 1968 and not in May, 1967 as claimed by the appellant. According to the respondents as an Instructor in a Technical Institution canl be deemed to be gaining experience in technical education only if he possessesU technical education as distinguished from a general education. An extractl from the parawise comments on the appeal provided by the Department reads as under: "(If) The possession of Engineering Degree or equivalent qualification with nine years professional and/or technical education experience is a pre-requisite for promotion to the post of Principal, Government Polytechnic. The experience gained after the acquisition of requisite qualification is to be counted for the purpose, according to the Policy adopted by the Public Service Commission in cases of appointments to such posts are decided by the Government vide Services, General Administration and Information Department's U.
4. O. No. S. O. XII (S & G A D) 3-83/68, dated 28-3-1969 (copy enclosed as Annexure I). The appellant acquired the equivalent qualification in 1968 from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (Austrialia). As such he does not possess the requisite experience of nine years after acquisition of the qualification. (Hi) He gained his Fellowship of Royal Institute of Technology Melbourne in 1968 and not in 1967, as professed by the petitioner." The Services and General Administration Department section XII issued a U O dated 28th March, 1969 in which it was stated that it was the general practice in cases of initial recruitment that the experience gained by a candidate before acquiring the minimum academic or professional qualifications was not taken under consideration. However in the present case the appellant had a history of past employment in the Technical Training Institutions. It was contended by the appellant that no departmental practice existed which could be cited as a precedent fop not counting past experience in a case like his. The appellant was appointed as an Instructor in Radio Electronics in the Government Polytechnic Institute, Rawalpindi on 22nd March, 1960. Radio Electronics is an integral part of the curriculum of the Polytechnic Institute and without this subject this course in technical education is not complete.
5. It stands to reason therefore that the appellant was engaged in imparting technical education from that date. The argument that to be able to impart technical education the appellant had to bave a technical diploma or degree, is irrelevant in this context. He was, prior to his being appointed as Instructor in Radio Electronics a Lecturer in Physics, and he was teaching the subject of Physics in a course of general education as distinguished from technical education. This does not necessarily means that his teaching of the syllabus of Radio Electronics at the Polytechnic Institute was an essay in general education. Obviously the teaching of Radio Electronics at a Polytechnic Institute must of necessity be orientated technically and it is futile to argue that the appellant was not engaged in imparting technical education from 22nd March 1960.% It is of interest to note that in Appendix A to the Rules in Group II the minimum qualifications prescribed for appointment to the posts of Instructors (Technical Subjects) are as follows: "Second Class Engineering Degree in the relevant subject from a recognised university or equivalent qualification from a recognized institute provided that in the case of Instructor in Radio Electronics, Second Class M.Sc, in Physics with Radio Electronics as special paper shall also be acceptable.*' ' Thus we see that the appellant was competently appointed as an Instructor in a technical subject with effect from 22nd March 1960 and his experience thereafter should count towards giving him the experience of technical education in terms' of the requirements cited in the rules. This view gains strength from the fact that it is not expressly stated in the rules that the technical education experience required for promotion to the post of Principal must have been gained prior to the acquisition of technical qualification. Respondent No. 2 appears to have read this into the rules on the basis of what is described as departmental practice. No specific Instance of a case of similar nature has been cited before us which should establish that it was the departmental practice not to count the experience gained as an Instructor in a technical subject at a Polytechnic Institute prior to the acquisition of a technical degree. If it be assumed that the respondent department are correct in their interpretation of the rules then according to the sequence of facts the distinction made by them becomes merely hypothetical. Mr. Munawwar Ali became an Instructor in the Technical Subject of Radio Electronics from 22nd March 1960 and continued to teach this subject. If Mr. Munawwar Ali had acquired his technical qualification by that day it would not have made any difference to his teaching of Radio Electronics at the Polytechnic Institute. In actual fact he did not have the technical qualification on . 22nd March, 1960. Nevertheless it is not stated that his teaching of Radio Electronics was in any way less than adequate or that students taught by him were not, on account of his lack of a technical degree or diploma, adequately instructed. Thus in actual practice the difference in his teaching supposed to be occasioned by his possession of a technical degree was inoperative and hypothetical. To make this an excuse for stating that his experience of teaching Radio Electronics from 22nd March, 1960 onwards upto 1968 when be acquired the prescribed qualification should not be counted as experience of technical education for the purpose of his promotion, therefore, amounts to making an unjust distinction against him. We, therefore, hold that the appellant's experience for the purpose of appointment as Principal of a Polytechnic Institute should count from 22nd March 1960 which is the date on which he became an Instructor in the technical subject of Radio Electronics at the Government Polytechnic Institute Rawalpindi. We accept this appeal to this extent. The further question whether the appellant should be promoted or continue to hold the post of Principal is not for this Tribnnal to decide as it relates to his fitness for the said appointment and the Tribunal is not competent to examine it.