' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---These petitions for leave to appeal have been filed against judgment, dated 18th June, 2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby I.C.As. Tiled by petitioner have been dismissed. As common questions of law are involved in all the petitions, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this single order.
2. Succinctly stating the facts of the case are that Pakistan Engineering Council is a statutory body constituted under the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").
The Council was established to regulate and organize the profession of engineering and engineering work.. Besides other functions it has the authority to register Professional Engineers and Consulting Engineers and to recognize engineering qualification as professional qualification to initiate disciplinary proceedings if necessary against registered Engineers. The Act was promulgated in January 1976. For the purpose of the Act, its section 10 read with First Schedule recognize certain engineering qualifications granted by Pakistani Universities and Institutions.
Diploma granted by Institute of Engineering of Pakistan called as AMIE (Pak), which was amongst 7, recognized qualifications is also included. This qualification was renamed in 1983 as MIEP.
' The Federation of Arab Engineering made some complaints in 1988 against the academic and professional standards of diploma holders of AMIE qualification, many of whom were working abroad. There were general complaints in the country regarding standard of examination held by the Institute of Engineers of Pakistan. In 1982 Engineer M.M. Khan made a specific complaint. The matter was placed before 23rd meeting of Executive Committee of Council held on 21-6-1982 whereby the Executive Committee assigned the task to a Committee for looking into the standard of examination and other related matters concerning IEP, and its diploma of AMIE in the light of the complaints received. The Special Committee was earlier constituted vide Resolution of the Executive Committee dated 30-5-1981 and it was examining the standard of similar diploma granted by an Institution i.e, the Institute of Electrical Engineers of Pakistan. The Committee consisted of live members and was headed by Prof, Jamil Ahmad Khan of N.E,D. University of Engineering and Technology. The Committee had several meetings with representative of Institute of Engineering of Pakistan. After thorough probe and examination of the nature and demand of course study, the method of instructions of the training and standard of examination held by Institute of Engineering, the Committee recommended withdrawal of recognition of AMIE Diploma.
The report was placed before Executive Committee in its 28th Meeting held in December, 1983. The Institute of Engineering Pakistan asked for extension of time, which was allowed for one month. The comments were submitted by IEP in May, 1984 and finally the matter was placed before Executive Committee in its 31st Meeting.. The Executive Committee made certain recommendations and thereafter joint meetings of the committee with the representatives of Institute of Engineering Pakistan were held on various dates but no substantial result was achieved. Finally the IEP refused to comply with the decision of Pakistan Engineering Council, therefore, the Executive Committee of the Council decided to withdraw recognition granted to the diploma in AMIE in exercise of powers under section 15 of the Act. It was ordered that Schedule 1 of the Act be amended so as to derecognize AMI with effect from 24-5-1986. Notificaiton No,382(I)/88 to this effect was published in Gazette of Pakistan on 31-5-1988.
3. The decision of Pakistan Engineering Council withdrawing recognition of diploma granted by Institution of Engineers in Pakistan was challenged by respondents before Lahore High Court; Lahore by filing writ petitions. The petitions were accepted by learned Single Judge in Chambers vide consolidated judgment dated 18-5-1995. The petitioners challenged judgment of learned Single Judge, by filing Intra-Court Appeals, which have been dismissed by means of impugned judgment.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended as under:--
(i) That the constitution of Committee headed by Dr. Jamil Ahmad Khan for the purpose of looking into the examination and course of studies and the standard of curriculum was an appointment of 'Inspectors for the purpose of section 14 of the Act.
(ii) That the Committee had two members who had earlier been appointed as Inspectors under section 14 and they had participated in the affairs of-Inquiry and contributed to the report submitted to the Council.
(iii) That the Institute of Engineers Pakistan participated in the inquiry for four years without objection, therefore, they are estopped to object on the report compiled by the Committee and such report now will be deemed to be the report of the Committee Inspectors.
(iv) The decisive action is taken by the' Executive Committee under section 15 of the. Act after hearing the affected party which was done in this case, and therefore, even if there was any technical defect earlier during the course of inquiry it does not affect the ultimate decision by the competent Authority.
(v) That what is the cumulative effect of sections 14 and 15 of the Act keeping in view the provisions of section 8 of the Act.
5. Learned counsel for respondents argued as under:--
(1) That the Committee appointed could not be deemed to be Committee of Inspectors envisaged under section 14 of the Act.
(2) That if two of the members out of five happened to be Inspectors, even then the constitution of the Committee would be illegal.
(3) That the Inspectors are appointed under Bye-Law 51 of the PEC Bye-Laws, 1976 (hereafter referred to as the "Bye-Laws") whereas the Committees are appointed under Bye-Law 35, therefore, members of the Committee would not be deemed to be Inspectors.
(4) No estoppel can be pleaded against provisions of law, therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the respondents participated in the proceedings of the Committee for four years, therefore, for such reasons no benefit can be derived by the petitioner from the conduct of respondents.
(5) On account of issuance of that S.R.O. No,1213(I)/96, dated 26th October, 1996 the impugned Notification No,384(I)//88 dated 31-5-1988 has been superseded, therefore, instant petitions have become infructuous.
6. After hearing both the learned' counsel for parties we have also examined Article 51 of the Bye- laws. For convenience the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "51. The inspection of examination under section 14 shall be carried out in accordance with the following rules, namely:--
(1) It shall be the duty of the Registrar periodically to ascertain from the engineering institutions in Pakistan the dates and places of the examinations with which the Council is concerned.
(2) The Executive Committee shall appoint not less than three Inspectors from amongst the members of. The Council to attend at such qualifying and other examinations or institutions as the Chairman or the Executive Committee may direct and to report there on and at least one of these inspectors shall be a professor who has preferably taught the final year B.Sc. Engineering for five years and has acted examiner for the final year examination.
(3) Every Inspector shall receive from the Chairman a formal commission in writing under the seal of the Council specifying the examination or examinations or institution which he is required to inspect and to report to the Executive Committee in accordance with subsection (2) of section 14.
(4) It shall be the duty of the Inspector--
(a) to make himself acquainted with any previous reports of the qualifying examinations or institutions, which he is appointed to inspect. He shall be provided by the Registrar with a copy of these documents and the recommendations of the Council;
(b) to attend personally to every ex-examination or institution which he is required to inspect but he shall not interfere with the conduct of any examination;
(c) to report to the Executive Committee independently and separately his opinion as to the sufficiency of each examination, the courses of study and facilities for teaching provided by the institution;
(d) to set forth in his reports all necessary particulars as to the question asked in the written, oral and practical parts of the examination inspected by him, the equipment provided for the practical examination, the arrangements made for the invigilation and such other details as may be required for determining the scope and character of the examination;
(e) to include also in his reports a statement of the extent to which the recommendations of the Council in regard to professional engineers have been carried out in the case of each examination inspected by him and also to what extent the recommendations of the Council on professional education have been given effect to in the education of the students in the particular subject or subjects which he is concerned.
(5) The report of the Inspector, which shall be deemed to be confidential, shall be considered by the Executive Committee after obtaining the views of the institution concerned on any aspect or aspects of the report considered necessary. The final views and recommendations of the Executive Committee shall be communicated by the Chairman to the institution concerned for appropriate action and to the Federal Government and Provincial Governments for information.
(6) No inspector shall be appointed for the inspection of an institution in which he is employed."
7. A perusal of above provision prima facie suggests to hold that there is no special machanism for the appointment of Inspectors to carry out the object and purposes of section 14 of the Act. The only significant thing is that the number of the Inspectors should not be less than 3 and one of them should be professor. There is no cavil that the 5 members of the Committee were appointed by the Executive Committee and out of them one was professor, as such the High Court may have examined the case from this angle that when the provisions of Article 51 reproduced hereinabove have been substantially complied with then whether there was any legal impediment in considering the composition of the committee to be the Committee of Inspectors. At this juncture reference to Article 35 of Bye-laws, 1976 would also not be out of context because this provision relates to the mode of appointment of other committees and conduct of business at such meetings. The object and purpose of appointing such committees has also been mentioned therein, therefore, it would also be one of the question for examination before us that as to whether the Committee appointed by the Executive Committee for the purpose of section 14 of the Act cannot be considered as the Committee of the Inspectors for the purpose of Article 51 of the Bye- laws 'or it was a committee appointed for the purpose of Article 35 of the Bye-laws. Learned Single Judge in Chambers and learned I.C.A. Bench have not attended to both these important aspects of the case. Therefore, to examine the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties noted hereinabove and keeping in view the observations made on the basis of Articles 51 and 35 of the Bye-Laws leave to appeal is granted.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he would not press civil miscellaneous applications provided the office is directed to fix the appeals arising out of these petitions at any early date.
Order accordingly. The civil miscellaneous applications are dismissed. However, the office is directed to fix the appeals arising out of these petitions at any early date subejct to soliciting necessary approval from Hon'ble Chief Justice.