MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---Vide impugned order dated 11-7-2000, learned Single Judge, in chamber, has dismissed the writ petition of the appellant. Hence this appeal.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is a registered society; and aims and object of the Institution are inter alia to promote and advance the science, practice and business of engineering in all its branches throughout Pakistan, to impart amongst its members, the information on all the matters relating to engineering and to encourage, assist and extend knowledge and information connected therewith.
3. On the enforcement of Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 in view of section 2(m) and section 10, the appellant was recognized as an institution for the purposes of the Act and finds mention in the First Schedule at Serial No.7. Subsequently, on 30-5-1988, the recognition granted to the appellant was withdrawn, which action was challenged by the appellant, through Writ Petition No.4677 of 1988. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge in chamber vide order dated 18-5-1995, primarily on the ground that the Inspectors on whose report, recognition of the appellant, had been withdrawn, were not validly appointed. Against the above, the Pakistan Engineering Council (the Council), preferred an I.C.A. No.266 of 1995. It may be pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the matter on account of some negotiations, between the parties, the recognition of the appellant was restored on 18-8-1996. Anyhow, I.C.A. Was disallowed by the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 18-6-2001. We have been apprised by Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, learned counsel for the respondents, that the above orders have been challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court, where leave has been granted.
The above narration is only meant as a backdrop of the case.
4. However, the real dispute arose between the parties in the present litigation, when on the report of Mr. A.R. Memon, the appointed inspectors, highlighting and pointing out certain deficiencies in the appellant's set up, such as lack of proper training; and laboratory facilities necessary for the full structured course of studies, etc. The Pakistan Engineering Council, vide resolution passed in its 74th meeting decided to issue a show-cause notice to the appellant. This action was challenged by the appellant, through the instant writ petition, which was dismissed through the impugned order.
5. It is argued by Dr. A. Basit, learned counsel for the appellant that learned Single Judge, in chamber, has misconstrued and misapplied the provisions of the Pakistan Engineering-Council Act, 1976, particularly section 15 of the Act, which lays down the conditions and the criteria, on the basis of which, alone an institution can be de--recognized. In this behalf, he has referred to subsection (1) of the section 15, which reads as: "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 recognized engineering qualifications or the standards of proficiency required from candidates in any examination held for the purpose of grant 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".
On the strength of above, it is argued that the so-called deficiencies pointed out by Mr. A.R. Memon, such as the lack of training and laboratory facilities, with the appellant, has no relevance and on the basis of which action could be taken under the above section because the appellants right from the beginning was a recognized institution and therefore, for the purpose of its de- recognition, the students who were granted diploma by the appellant, should have been interviewed/examined by the Council, to assess adjudge and determine whether they have the requisite ability and the skill to justify the recognition of the appellant. As this has not been done, rather extraneous considerations have been kept in view, by the Council, while issuing show-cause notice to the appellant, which action is beyond the scope of section 15 of the Act. It has also been submitted that as per section 9-E, the appellant being a statutorily recognized institution, was the part of the Executive Committee, but on account of the impugned action of the Council, the appellant ceases to be so, which resulted in holding the said provision nugatory. Dr. Basit further submits that the show-cause notice impugned by the appellant in the writ petition was illusionary because before the issuance of the notice, the Council in its 75th meeting, had already de-- recognized the appellant without even awaiting for the reply of the notice from the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has endeavoured to explain to this Court the reasons behind the show-cause notice and it is vehemently stated that the same is the result of some personal grudge of Mr. Jamil Ahmed, the Chairman of the Council.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent states that during the pendency of the previous litigation on account of negotiations between the parties, a settlement was arrived at, according to which the recognition of the appellant was restored, if the succeeding conditions were fulfilled. In this behalf, he has referred to the minutes of the meeting dated 18-8-1996, the document appended alongwith the writ petition wherein, it was resolved as follows:-- "The house unanimously agreed that under any circumstances requirement of regular coaching should not be eliminated and cases should be organization formally for imparting well-structured instruction. After long discussion, the following points were agreed upon:-- (i)The duration of engineering education after diploma of F. Sc. Will be for a minimum period of 4- 1/2 years.
(ii)Formal coaching will be provided to the students, which would be inspected by the PEC Inspectors.
(i.e)The formal examination of the students will be inspected by the PEC Inspectors just like Engineering Universities/Institutions.
(iv)The application form AC-1 already supplied to IE(P), will be sent to the PEC duly completed as early as possible so that the Accreditation Committee may submit the report in the Form AC-2.
This meeting was duly attended by the representative of the appellant and , was accepted by Mr. I.
A. Osmani. President, vide his letter, dated 17th September, 1996, Annexure (C-1) of the petitioner in which, he has stated as follows:-- "Your kind attention is invited to the last but one paragraph of the minutes of meeting held at Islamabad on 18th August, 1996, wherein this Institution was asked to confirm action on the four points mentioned therein. We agree in principle to all the four points with the exception of the word 'formal' in Item No.2, which is redundant."
It is. Submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that in consonance with the above decision, Notification dated 28-10-1996, was issued by the Council and necessary amendment in the Schedule was incorporated in the column of Recognized Engineering Qualifications" which after .e change reads as:-- "Member I.E. (P.) after passing requisite examination, during a minimum period of 4-1/2 years and having pre-engineering qualification either diploma (in the same discipline) or F.Sc. (pre-Engg.)."
The appellant in view of the above notification was obligated to impart full structure training/education to its student, for which certain paraphernalia facilities were required, but as per report of Mr. A.R. Memon, the following deficiencies were found on account of which the notice was issued. The relevant portion of the report to which reference has been made reads as below:-- "It was already agreed by IE(P) to abide by the conditions of PEC including minimum period of 4-1/2 years duration of studies, updating syllabi, starting of formal coaching at all the local centres alognwith the requisite laboratory/workshop work, as is the international practice. In fact in the realm of Engineering the concept of duration and syllabi convey the built in necessity of formal coaching. Considering the provisions of PEC Act/By-laws and relevant notification, issued from time to time, the Committee feels that these requirements are not being fulfilled by IE(P.)
The Committee members were of the view that in the absence of formal coaching, the practical /laboratory works will not be equivalent to all --round practical experience being imparted in various Engineering Universities at under graduate level.
The team observed that in case of AMIE candidates, there is no faculty, no arrangements of formal coaching and other allied facilities. The absence of above essentials also indicates lack of depth in Engineering Techniques. Moreover, the design content in various subjects is not up to the mark.
7. It is on the basis of above report, that the PEC had rightly taken the decision of de-recognition of the appellant, as it had failed to fulfil and adhere to the criteria of qualification, which was agreed and mutually settled through Notification dated 28-10-1996. It is submitted that the Court in the Constitutional jurisdiction, cannot sit as a Court of appeal, to find out any error in the technical report of the expert, when the order/action of the Council is not shown to be without jurisdiction, arbitrary, perverse, etc.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. As regards the question, if the criteria which has been made the basis by the respondents, in taking action against the appellant, is beyond the scope of section 15 of the Act, 1976, suffice it to say that by examining the sections 14 and 15 of the Act together and in the light of the fact that criteria of qualification qua the appellant was mutually settled between the parties, we are of the view that under section 14, the Council has the power to appoint the Inspector for the purpose of considering the issues of recognition or otherwise by the institution. Such Inspector can examine about the sufficiency of the examination conducted and the course of studies and facilities for teaching provides by the institution, at different stages in respect of such examination. The requisite steps of appointing Inspector have been fully followed by the respondents in the present case and according to the report of the Inspector, certain vital deficiencies have been mentioned, which in view of the Council, consisting of experts are sufficient for the purpose of de-recognition of the appellant.
9. Therefore, we are unable to subscribe to the interpretation of section 15 made by the learned counsel for the appellant that notwithstanding the lack of such facilities, the question of recognition should be decided on the basis of individual assessment of the students/candidates having examination/diploma from the appellant's institution. In our view, full structured course of Engineering stretching upon four and a half years as mentioned in the qualification clause cannot be accomplished with the deficiencies pointed out by the Inspector. Moreover, we are of the considered view that recognition is not to be granted to an individual candidate but to the institution as a whole, and the principle behind is to judge the ability and capability of the institution qua imparting/giving education, coaching training to its students and if the institution is in position to produce the capable persons, therefore, the degree, diploma issued by the institution should be recognized but where the deficiencies are so glaring and apparent and without providing which, no capable student/candidate can be produced by the institution, it is ridiculous to conceive that instead of standard of having full facility in the institution, recognition question must be adjudged on the basis of interview/examination of students of such institution. On account of above, where the decision has been taken by the Council, which is an expert body to decide the issue about the recognition or de-recognition of an institution and when the orders/actions of the respondents have not been shown to be without jurisdiction, perverse, arbitrary the Court in the exercise of its authority in judicial review cannot sit as a Court of appeal and to quash the order/action of expert body which is based upon proper expert and technical consideration.
10. As far the argument about the mala fide we are not convinced if a case in this behalf has been made out by the appellant, as per chance if Mr. Jamil Ahmed on both occasions, when the action had been taken by the respondents against the appellant, was the Chairman, this would not mean that the action is result of dishonesty of purpose. Even otherwise, the action against the appellant has been taken by the Council as a whole and Mr. Jamil Ahmed is only the member of the Council, may be the Chairman. It is not established on the record, if either on his behest, behalf or under his influence, that the appellant has been subjected to the aforesaid action.
11. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that after decision of this Court, in earlier litigation, the respondents had withdrawn the recognition of the appellant, and thus such action being pendente lite, should necessarily be adjudged as mala fide, and illegal, suffice it to say, that this argument has no force for the reason that it is during the pendency of that litigation, without prejudice to the pendency, the discord was negotiated afresh and settled between the appellant and the respondent, and an agreed criteria was settled. Now if the appellant has failed to abide by and fulfil such new criteria, and its recognition has been withdrawn by respondent, this action shall have no nexus to the pendency of the earlier litigation.
12. The learned Single Judge in chamber has considered all the aspects of the case and has passed well-reasoned judgment, which does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity calling for the interference in Intra-Court Appeal. Dismissed.