' This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 4677 of 1988, 6063 of 1988, 5649 of 1991 and 5650 of 1991 which are directed against the same decision of Pakistan Engineering Council and involve the same controversy.
2. The petitioner in the first mentioned petition is the Institute of Engineers which is a Society registered under the Societies Act, 1860 and has been holding examinations and issuing diplomas in Engineering to the successful candidates. Pakistan Engineering Council respondent No, 1 is a statutory body created under the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 for regulation of Engineering profession. The Act inter alia provided that no person can practicse the profession of Engineering, unless he possesses recognized engineering qualifications which according to section 2(1) means any of the qualifications included in the First or the Second Schedule. Sections, 10 and 11 of the Act deal with the recognition of the engineering qualification granted by the Institutes in Pakistan and abroad. Under section 10(1) all engineering qualifications granted by engineering institutions in Pakistan included in First schedule had the status of recognised engineering qualification while section 10 (2) on the other hand provides for recognition of engineering qualifications on application to be made to the council of the institution. The petitioner institution was included in First Schedule in terms of section 10(1) and as such the diploma of AMIE granted had the status of recognised engineering qualification. The petitioners in other Constitutional petitions are the students of the Institute.
3. All the petitioners feel aggrieved of the decision of the Executive Committee of Pakistan Engineering Council taken in its 38th meeting held on 24-5-1986 whereby the recognition granted to the institute of the petitioner was withdrawn with effect from 24-5-1986.
4. This decision was arrived at by respondent No, 1 on the basis of report of sub-committee constituted by the Council under the Chairmanship of Dr. Jamil A. Khan which had opined that the standard of education in the petitioner/institution had deteriorated and required improvement. It was suggested by the committee that the institution should revise their constitution and bye-laws by specifying a minimum duration of four years for passing Sections A & B of their examinations; include Section C examination in its syllabus and should also make arrangements for coaching at all centres. A copy of this report was sent to respondent No, 1 which was directed to take remedial measures. It is common ground between the parties that the first two conditions have been met with by the petitioner but the third recommendation has been accepted by and it was on account of this failure of the petitioner that the diploma awarded by it was derecognised
5. In support of this petition Mr. S.M. Zafar, Syed Jamshed Ali Shah and Mr. Muhammad Saeed Akhtar, Advocates have been heard at length. The main burden of their argument was that the Council had no jurisdiction or power to derecognise the qualification mentioned in the First Schedule to the Act, as these qualifications have been recognised by the Legislature itself which alone could withdraw the recognition. In the submission of the learned counsel the power to withdraw recognition vested in the Pakistan Engineering Council by section 15 of the Act is only available in respect of those institutes which have been granted recognition by the council itself under subsection (2) of section 10 of the Act.
6. It was next argued by Mr. S.M. Zafar and Mr. Saeed Akhtar, Advocates that the impugned decision was violative of section 15 of the Act itself which authorises withdrawal of recognition only on the basis of the report of an Inspector appointed under section 14 of the Act but in the present case no such appointment was made. Syed Jamshed Ali Shah, Advocate appearing for one of the petitioners has however pointed out that in fact 3 persons namely Dr. Amjad Pervez, Dr. Khalid Farooq and Dr. Saleem Arif had been appointed as Inspectors by the council for the limited purpose of inspecting the examination centres who had pointed certain deficiencies which have since been removed. A copy of that report has been placed on the record. It was pointed out by him that as there was nothing in the report about the standard of education imparted by the institute and as such the recognition could not be withdrawn on that ground. Mr. Saeed Akhtar, Advocate raised another argument which was that the power to withdraw recognition under section 15 of the Act vests in the Council itself and not in its Executive Committee and as such the decision to withdraw recognition could only be taken by the Council as a whole and not by a committee. Syed Jamshed Ali, Advocate also submitted that after decision of the institute the Federal Government had issued instructions vide D.O. Letter dated 16-10-1986 of the Additional Secretary which were binding on the council which had failed to give effect to the same. In the last all the learned counsel contended that the impugned decision was mala fide and had been taken for ulterior purposes.
7. On behalf of the respondent Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate explained that the respondent was obliged to withdraw the recognition in view of the failing standard of the education being imparted by the institute. He elaborated that respondent No, 1 had received various complaints from institutes and organizations on the basis of which a committee comprising of 5 Engineers of high repute was formed who after thorough examination reported that without remedial measures suggested by them in their report being taken the qualification awarded by the petitioner institute should not be recognised. Learned counsel argued that the decision of the council is strictly in accordance with law on the subject. The allegations of mala fides were strongly -refuted.
8. Having considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner I regret my inability to agree that the power to withdraw recognition vesting in the council is only exercisable in respect of qualifications which have been recognised by the council itself and not with regard to the qualifications which stood mentioned in the First Schedule, at the time of A promulgation of Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976. Such a restricted and narrow interpretation is neither borne out by the language employed nor by the purpose for which section 15 has been enacted. On proper analysis it would be seen that power of DE recognition vests in' the council in respect of all recognised engineering qualifications irrespective as to who had granted the recognition in the First Instance.
9. As already observed the recognised engineering qualification according to section 2(1) of the Act means any of the qualifications included in the First or Second Schedule to the Act; the former of which deals with recognition of engineering qualification granted by the Institutes in Pakistan while the latter with recognition of foreign engineering qualifications. Section 10 of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act 1976 which provides for recognition of engineering qualifications is in two parts. Subsection (1) provides that the engineering qualification granted by engineering institution in Pakistan which are included in the First Schedule shall be recognised engineering qualification for the purposes of the Act. Under subsection (2) an engineering institute in Pakistan which grants an engineering qualification not included in the First Schedule can apply to the council to have such qualification recognised and the council may grant the recognition by amending the First Schedule so as to include such qualifications, therein. This subsection (1) deals with the qualifications which stood recognised as at the time of promulgation of the Act while under subsection (2) the engineering council has been authorised to grant recognition in future. The recognition granted by the Council are also given effect to by including the same in the First Schedule. There thus appears to be no difference between the two situations envisaged by subsection (1) and subsection (2) of section 10 of the Act.
9. Section 15 of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 which authorises the council to withdraw the recognition reads as under:--
(1) When upon report by an inspector, it appears to the Council that the courses of study and examination to be gone through in any engineering institution in Pakistan in order to obtain a recognised engineering qualification or the standards of proficiency required from candidates in any examination held for the purpose of granting such qualification are not such as to secure to persons holding such qualification the knowledge and skill requisite for the efficient practice of engineering, the council shall forward the report to the engineering institution concerned with an intimation of the period within which it may submit its explanation to the Council.
(2) On receipt of the explanation or, where no explanation is submitted within the specified period, on the expiry of that period, the Council, after making such further inquiry, if any, as it may think fit, may, by notification in the official Gazette, direct that an entry shall be made in the First Schedule against the engineering qualification to which the explanation relates declaring that it shall be a recognised engineering qualification only when granted before a specific date.
On its plain language the above-cited provision does not draw any distinction between those engineering qualifications which stood originally mentioned in the First Schedule and those qualifications which have been granted recognition by the council by amending the Schedule subsequently. The power to withdraw recognition by deleting the entry in the First Schedule is available in respect of all entries in Schedule and there is nothing in the Act to restrict the exercise of power of withdrawal only in respect of those entries which had been subsequently made.
11. The interpretation being placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner of section 15 not only goes against its language but also its spirit. One of the important functions of Pakistan Engineering Council is to ensure continued, proficiency and excellence in the field of engineering. It is thus called upon to constantly monitor various institutes granting, engineering qualification so as to ensure that requisite standards of action are maintained. This is a continuous and ongoing process. On no rational basis can it be claimed that once the qualification had been recognised by inclusion in First Schedule the council is powerless to take any action. Once the power to amend the First Schedule is conceded as has been provided in section 15 it cannot be held that exercise of that power under section 15 is restricted to cases covered by subsection (2) and not subsection (1) of section 10 of the Act. Schedule may be a part of the Act as has been contended by Mr. S.M. Zafar but if the Act itself allows the council to amend it no possible exception can be taken in that behalf.
12. Similarly the contention of Mr. Saeed Akhtar, Advocate that the power to withdraw the recognition can only be exercised by the Council and not by its executive committee is not well founded. Although it is correct that section 15 vests that power in the council which according to section 2(d) means the Pakistan Engineering Council itself but the argument of the learned counsel omits to take notice of section 9 of the Act under which the power vesting in the Council can be exercised by its executive committee.
13. According to section 3(3) of the Pakistan Engineering Council, 1976 the council comprises of all persons whose names appear on the register maintained under section 16 of the Act which provides for entry of the names and particulars of all persons possessing recognised engineering qualifications. It is a matter of common knowledge and has not been disputed that number of such persons run into thousands. If the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted that for exercise of any power vesting in the Council, a meeting of the general body has to be called is accepted, the Act itself will become unworkable. It was with this object in view that section 9 of the Act was enacted, subsection (1) of which reads as under:- "There shall be the executive committee of the Council for the management of the affairs of the Council and for performing the functions assigned to the Council by or under the Act."
' As is obvious from the reading of provision itself, the Executive Committee has been set up for performing the functions assigned to the Council by or under this Act. This section immediately follows section 8 of the Act which describes the functions of the Council and inter alia includes promotion of Engineering education and review of courses of studies in consultation with the Universities and recognition of engineering qualification for the purposes of registration of professional engineers and consulted engineers. It is well settled that the statute must be read as a whole, and one provision contained therein cannot be interpreted in isolation of the other. A conjunctive reading of various provisions especially sections 8, 9 and 15 shows that the power of withdrawal of recognition vesting in the Council can be exercised by the executive committee on behalf of the council.
14. Mr. Saeed Akhtar, Advocate referred to bye-law No, 7 of bye-laws framed by the Pakistan Engineering Council according to which the quorum for holding meeting of the council. Is 100 to contend that even though the number of the members may run in thousands but only presence of 100 persons for taking a decision is necessary. This argument of the learned counsel is spacious.
Even though the quorum may be 100 yet for holding a meeting notices will have to go to all the members and necessary arrangements for all shall have to be made. It cannot be the intention of the law-giver that for each and every decision for running the affairs the general body of the council must meet and decide.
15. Now the argument that the impugned decision of the council is not in consonance with section 15 of the Act may be examined. It has been contended and rightly so by the learned counsel for the petitioner that according to section 15 itself the recognition of an engineering qualification can only be withdrawn if on the basis of the report of an Inspector it appears to the council that the courses of the study and the examination to be gone through in any engineering institute in Pakistan or standard of proficiency required from the candidate in any examination are not such so as to secure to the persons holding such qualifications the requisite knowledge and skill for efficient practice of engineering qualification. The power is as such not unqualified or unbridled but its exercise is dependent upon a report by the Inspector pointing out deficiencies enumerated in section 15 itself. The existence of such a report is a sine qua non for the exercise of that power.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record I am clearly of the view that in the present case this condition was not fulfilled.
16. The appointment of Inspectors is envisaged by section 14 of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act which requires the Council to appoint such number of Inspectors as it may deem fit to attend any or all of examinations held by Engineering Institute in Pakistan. There is a categorical assertion in all these petitions that no Inspector was appointed with a view to inspect and report about the standard of proficiency or the courses of study. In the written statement filed by the respondent this assertion has not been specifically denied rather it has been conceded that the action has been taken on the basis of the report of sub-committee appointed by the Council comprising of Dr. Jamil A. Khan, Engr. M. Khalid Farooq, S.NA. Pasha and &ram Ullah Chaudhry and that of Inspectors.
17. Mr. Abid Hasan Minto the learned counsel for the respondent strongly urged that the members of the sub-committee can be considered to be Inspectors within the meaning of section 14 of the Act. This contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted for various reasons; firstly that section 14 envisages the appointment of inspectors and not a committee; secondly that none of the members of the committee was appointed as Inspectors; thirdly that the appointment of Inspector has to be made by following the procedure laid down in bye-law No, 10 of the Bye-Laws of Pakistan Engineering Council; and lastly and more importantly the appointment of a sub- committee is separately provided in Bye-law No, 35 of the Bye-Laws which envisages the setting up of a committee for any special business by the Council. According to the written statement filed by respondents themselves the committee headed by Dr. Jamil was set up under Bye-Law 35.
Having itself stated so it is clearly not open for the respondent to claim that the members of the committee could be considered as Inspectors appointed under section 14 of the Act read with Bye- law No, 51.
18. Furthermore from the documents placed on record by Syed Jamshed All Shah, Advocate it is clear that respondent No, 1 had in fact appointed Dr. Amjad Pervez Sheikh, Dr. Khalid Farooq and Dr. Saleem Arif as Inspectors for inspecting the examination centres set up by respondent No,
1. In the report it was indicated that appointment of inspectors was only confined to the examination of the centres. It is the common ground that irregularities pointed out by the Inspectors in their report have since been removed. In presence of this report of the Inspectors there is no warrant for treating the report of the sub-committee to be that of the Inspectors
19. The learned counsel for the petitioner have stated and it has not been denied that the petitioner has already taken steps as for improving the courses of study and the only reason as to why the decision of derecognition was not being reviewed was that the institute was not holding any classes as suggested by the sub-committee but there is nothing about this fact in the report of the Inspectors. The learned counsel for the petitioner have pointed out that nowhere in the world the institutes for part time students hold regular classes. This aspect of the matter however cannot be examined by this Court and needs looking into by the Institute itself. It goes to the credit of the respondent that Mr. Abid Hassan Minto the learned counsel has stated with his usual candidness that on an application made by the petitioner the Institute was willing to re-examine the matter in the light of any subsequent development.
20. From the above discussion it follows that though the Council and its executive committee had the authority in law to derecognise the qualification granted to respondent No, 1 institute but that power could be exercised on the basis of report of the Inspectors and not a committee.
Consequently the impugned action which is based on report of the committee is not sustainable.
In this view of the matter the question whether the action was mala fide, need not be examined.
' As a result these petitions are allowed and the impugned resolution/decision is declared to be without legal authority and without legal effect.