2012 P L C (C.S.

) 290

[Lahore High Court]

Before Nasir Saeed Sheikh, J

Dr. HASSAN AMIR SHAH

Versus

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary and 5 others

Writ Petitions Nos.7756, 8681, 6963, 7213 and 9121' of 2011, decided on 24th June, 2011.

University of Education Lahore Ordinance (L of 2002)---

----Preamble---Lahore College for Women University Lahore Ordinance (XLIX of 2002),

Preamble---Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpindi Ordinance (XLIII of 1999),
Preamble---Bahauddin Zakriya University Act (III of 1975), Preamble---Government College
University, Lahore Ordinance (XLVIII of. 2002), Preamble---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.25 &
199---Constitutional petition---Equality before law---Reasonable classification---Scope---
Appointment of Vice-Chancellors in the Universities---Government, through a public notice,
published in three leading daily newspapers of Pakistan, had invited applications to fill the posts
of Vice-Chancellors---Search Committee consisting of eminent scholars was constituted by the
Provincial Governor (Chancellor of the Universities) for making recommendations about the
selection of candidates on the basis of academic record as well as of the administrative
experience of the respective candidates through a credible mechanism on the basis of an
evaluation criteria determined for the purpose by the members of the Search Committee---Such
process had been commenced by the members of the Search Committee for selection of the
candidates through necessary advertisements in three daily well known newspapers of the
country giving in detail the eligibility criteria of the . selection---Selection of candidates for the
appointment in question had been given a transparent mechanism---Allocation of five additional
marks to the credit of the qualifications of those who had obtained their Ph.D degree from well
known top ranking 500 Universities of the world could not be an act of discrimination as against
universities of Pakistan---Where there was a reasonable classification made in a particular
matter, such step was itself considered as sufficient in negating the allegations of
discrimination---Contention of the petitioners that the said evaluation criteria, as determined by
the Committee, was discriminatory was not sustainable in the eye of law and had no legal
force---No written test was conducted and the administrative skills and the educational potentials
of the candidates short-listed was further to be assessed by the Search Committee finally through
an interview to be conducted and no law was 'violated in adapting such procedure---Contention
of the petitioners that 40 marks were arbitrarily allocated to the interview, in circumstances, was
repelled---Process of selection initiated and conducted was final for filling the vacancies and did
not suffer from any illegality; was on the face of it transparent and having been supervised by
Search Committee working under the guidelines provided by Higher Education Commission--
Constitutional petitions were dismissed in circumstances.

Nadeem Khan v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Peshawar and another PLD
1993 SC 397; Ghulam Mustafa Insari and 48 others v. Government of the Punjab and others
2004 SCMR 1903; Allah, Yar v. General Manager, Railways Headquarters Lahore and another
2001 SCMR 256; Dr. Tariq Nawaz and another v. Government of Pakistan through the Secretary,
Ministry of Health, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and another 2000 SCMR 1956; Mst.
Attiyya Bibi Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary of Education (Ministry
of Education), Civil Secretariat, Islamabad and others 2001 SCMR 1161; Mehram Ali and others
v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1998 SC 1445; Abdul Baqi and others v. Muhammad
Akram and Others PLD 2003 SC 163 and Shaikh Zayed Hospital and Post Graudate Medical
Institutes through Chairman and Dean and another v. Dr. Muhammad Saeed and another 2010
PLC (C.S.) 967 ref.

Anwar Kamal and Khawaja Umar Masood for Petitioner.

Nasir Ahmad Awan for Petitioner (in Writ Petitions Nos.7213 and 8681 of 2011).

Ijaz Ahmad Chadhar for Petitioner (in Writ Petition No.6963 of 2011).
Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. A.-G. and Malik Abdul Aziz Awan, A.A.-G. for Respondents.

Ms. Shama Zia, Additional Secretary Higher Education Department and Ghulam Sarwar Noor,
Deputy Secretary, Higher Education Department for Respondents.

ORDER

NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, J.--- This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.7756, 8681,
6963, 721.3 and 9121 all of 2011 which involve common questions of law and facts.

2. The Secretary Higher Education Department, Government of Punjab through a public notice
published in the daily "Nawa-i-Waqt dated 19-1-2011 invited applications to fill the posts of
Vice-Chancellors in the following six universities:---

(i) University of Education, Lahore.

(ii) Lahore College for Women University, Lahore.

(iii) Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpindi.

(iv) Bahauddin Zakriya University, Multan.

(v) Government College University, Lahore.

(vi) University of Sargodha, Sargodha:

The eligibility criteria stated in the said publication for the prospective candidates was mentioned
as follows:---

Eligibility Criteria

* Should have Ph.D degree in any subject from a reputed University.

* Should not be more than 65 years of age on 4-2-2011.

* Both male and female candidates are eligible to apply (for Lahore College for Women
University, Lahore and Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpindi, only female candidates
are eligible).

* Should have vast experience in postgraduate teaching including experience in

administrative and financial management

* Should have to his/her credit quality research' publications in journals of international

repute.

In addition to the above the following attributes were also specified in the advertisement for
consideration of the candidates:---

* Possess distinguished reputation as a scholar and academician having close familiarity

with academic functions both in classroom teaching and research.

* Experience in higher education management.

* Capability and experience of resource mobilization. Leadershipqualities for policy
making in relation to efficient and effective management of all affairs of Universities

Some 224 candidates applied in response to the said advertisement.. Earlier a Search Committee
comprising the- following eminent educationists and scholars was reconstituted vide Notification
No. SO(UNIV . )6-2(2000), dated 3-4-2009:---

Syed Babar Ali, Pro-Chancellor, Lahore University of Management Convener

Sciences (LUMS)

Mr. Sartaj Aziz, Vice-Chancellor, Beaconhouse National University, Member

Lahore

Lt. Gen. (R) Muhammad Akram Khan Vice-Chancellor, University of Member

Engineering and Technology, Lahore

Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore Member

Secretary, Government of the Punjab Higher Education Department. Ex-Officio/

Secretary of
the committee

3. The Search Committee on the basis of evaluation criteria short listed 89 candidates from
amongst the 224 applicants for calling them for interview purposes in order to assess their
eligibility. The petitioners A were not included in the short listed 89 candidates and felt aggrieved
of the above act of exclusion of their names from the short listed candidates and resultantly the
present writ petitions were instituted against the act of the exclusion of their names from the
short listed candidates.
4. Vide order dated 7-6-2011 notice in' compliance with the provisions of Order XXVII-A of
C.P.C. was issued to the Advocate-General Government of Punjab to appear in this case and
assist the Court on the questions raised in the writ petitions.

5. The respondents submitted parawise comments which have been made part of the record.

6. Mr. Anwar Kamal learned senior counsel mainly addressed the arguments in all the writ
petitions and the learned counsel representing other petitioners in the connected writ petitions
relied upon his arguments. The learned counsel representing the petitioner of Writ Petition
No.5841 of 2011 only added one point that at the evaluation criteria assessment of the candidates
the administrative experience of the petitioner Dr. Yousaf Hayat Khan of Writ Petition No.7213
of 2011, was not at all considered for preparing the table of marks of the said candidate which
according to the said learned counsel deprived the petitioner from being included in the list of
selected candidates who were called upon for interviews.

7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has raised two basic objections about the process
being evolved by the respondents for short listing the candidates:---

(i) That the Search Committee which was constituted by the respondents 1 and 6 has no legal
basis

(ii) That the evaluation criteria fixed for short listing the candidates was also illegal and arbitrary
and has resulted into grave discrimination against the petitioners.

While elaborating the point on Search Committee being allegedly lacking the legal basis, the
learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the members of Search Committee have not been
selected on the basis of any validly regulated procedure prescribed for the purpose. The learned
counsel for the petitioners contended that none of the members of the Search Committee was
himself the holder of a PhD. degree and therefore all of them suffered from lack of inherent
qualification in themselves to assess the eligibility and capability of the candidates for the posts
of Vice-Chancellors all of whom admittedly were holders of PhD. degrees either from the
Pakistani Universities or from abroad. The learned counsel also argued that the working of
Search Committee also lacked any credible mechanism which is the necessary condition for the
purposes of transparent performance of a public functionary.
8. Elaborating the point about the objections of the petitioners upon the evaluation criteria the
learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the evaluation criteria was fixed subsequent to
completion of process of invitation of applications. The learned counsel submitted that by adding
of five additional marks to the credit of those PhDs who got their qualifications from foreign
universities has resulted into an automatic exclusion of the Ph.Ds. from the Pakistani
universities. The learned counsel contended that this act has created an open discrimination for
the Pakistani Ph.D. degree holders. The learned counsel further pointed out that the evaluation
criteria as set down by the Search Committee for short listing the candidates has completely
overlooked the last item in the eligibility criteria stated in the newspaper advertisement dated 19-
1-2011 which reads that a candidate should have to his/her credit quality research publications in
journals of international repute. Thus the learned counsel contended that the evaluation criteria is
violative of the eligibility criteria as published in the advertisements and is therefore arbitrary.
Thelearned counsel also took exception to the allocation of 40 marks for interview purposes and
also contended the same as well being arbitrary and without any legal basis. The learned counsel
thus prayed that the entire process of selection of the candidates for the posts of Vice-Chancellors
for the six universities listed in the advertisement be directed to be commenced de novo to be
regulated by some rule-based evaluation criteria fixed earlier in time than the commencement of
the selection process and that some specific statutory basis be also directed to be created for the
purpose of functioning of the members of the Search Committee. The writ petitions were
therefore prayed to be accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the
judgments reported as DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. D.T.C. MAZDOOR
CONGRESS AND OTHERS (AIR 1991 SC 101), SHAIKH ZAYED HOSPITAL AND POST
GRAUDATE MEDICAL INSTITUTES THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND DEAN AND
ANOTHER v. DR. MUHAMMAD SAEED AND ANOTHER (2010 PLC (C.S.) 967),
MOHINDER SAIN GARG v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS (1991) (1 SUPREME
COURT CASES 662), VIKRAM SINGH AND ANOTHER v. SUBORDINATE SERVICES
SELECTION BOARD, HARYANA AND OTHERS (1991) (1 SUPREME COURT CASES 686)
and an unreported judgment passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W . P. No.5841 of
2011 in support of his contentions.

9. The learned Additional Advocate-General assisted by the learned Assistant Advocate-General

has addressed arguments vehemently opposing the maintainability of the writ petitions. It was
argued by them that the Search Committee comprised eminent educationists of the country three
of whom are nominated by names whereas the two senior government officials have been made
members of the Search Committee for its proper administrative functioning. The learned
Additional Advocate General of Punjab pointed out that admittedly no mala fides are attributed
to the members of the Search Committee by the petitioners and that keeping in view the long
standing experience of the specifically nominated members 1, 2 and 3, in the relevant field the
government has reposed full confidence in them for selecting suitable candidates for the posts in
question. It was pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate-General that this process of
constituting the Search Committee was commenced first in the year 2005 through a notification
dated 7-1-2005 which process was first commenced at the federal level and later on for the
purpose of the selection of candidates against the posts of Vice-Chancellors of six public sector
universities enumerated in the advertisement the present Search Committee was also
reconstituted through notification dated 3-.4-2009 by the Higher Education Commission at the
provincial level. The learned Additional Advocate-General pointed out that Higher Education
Commission also provided guidelines for selection of the Rectors/Vice-Chancellors to the Search
Committee and the photocopies of the relevant notifications as well of the guidelines were
produced before the Court and the copies of the same were handed over to the learned counsel
for the petitioners for their perusal on 7-6-2011. The learned Additional Advocate-General
further argued that the guidelines provided by the Higher Education Commission to the members
of the Search Committee duly constitutes the instructions of the government and have the force
of law. The learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the judgments reported as (1) THE
PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT AND (2) THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE v. CH. DIN MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS AND
(1) THE PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY SOCIAL
WELFARE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT AND (2) THE REGISTRAR, CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE v. ZAFAR ALI SHAH AND
OTHERS (PLD 1964 SC 21), KHAN FAIZULLAH KHAN V. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
(PLD 1974 SC 291), MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE v. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF
PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND 2 OTHERS (PLD 1996 SC 197) SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT,
IRRIGATION SECRETARIAT LAHORE v. ABDUL HAMID ARIF AND OTHERS (1991
SCMR 628), MUHAMMAD UMAR KHAN v. YOUSAF ARAB AND OTHERS,
MUHAMMAD UMAR KHAN v. THE STATE (1973 SCMR 134) and MUHAMMAD
ISHAQUE AND OTHERS v. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY
AND OTHERS (2005 SCMR 980) and the learned Additional Advocate General also referred to
an unreported judgment by a Division Bench of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.245 of
2010, in support of his contentions.

10. The learned Additional Advocate-General as well as the learned Assistant Advocate-General
concluded that a transparent process for selection of the candidates has been undertaken by the
members of the Search Committee who were eminent educationists. The learned Additional
Advocate General further submitted that the awarding of 5 additional marks to the holders of
Ph.Ds. from foreign universities does not amount to any discriminatory act but constitutes giving
due recognition to better qualified persons who get their education from well known high
ranking universities from. abroad. The learned Additional Advocate-General also contended that
in the present case the allocation, of 40 marks for the candidates who have been called for
interview are not only made to give more transparency to the selection process by the Search
Committee but is also not violative of any provision of law. Thelearned Additional Advocate-
General pointed out that the petitioners do not have any locus standi to raise any objection to the
allocation of 40 marks for interview purposes as the present petitioners have not reached the
stage of the interview and therefore they cannot be said to be aggrieved of the said allocation of
marks. The learned Additional Advocate-General contended that in respect of contentions raised
by the learned counsel for the petitioner of Writ Petition No.7213 of 2011, the Higher Education
Department officials called him to appear before them and give documentary proof of his
claimed experience but the said petitioner could not do the needful that is why he was not given
any marks for the experience section of the evaluation criteria. Thus the learned Additional
Advocate General as well as the learned Assistant Advocate-General vehemently prayed for the
dismissal of the writ petitions.

11. It is also pointed that the petitioners moved C.M. No.2022 of 2011 on 8-6-2011 for
impleading the Governor in his capacity as Chancellor, as the respondent in the writ petition,
C.M. No.2029 of 2011 on 8-6-2011 seeking amendment of the Writ Petition No.7756 of 2011 by
adding the prayer that the Search Committee be graciously restrained from proceeding further in
the matter and C.M.No.2038 of 2011 on 9-6-2011 for impleading all the 89 candidates who have
been selected for interview purposes All the three C.Ms. detailed above have been opposed by
the learned Additional Advocate-General as not being entertainable at this stage of the
proceedings.

12. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
record with their able assistance.

13. I would like first of all to dispose of the three C.Ms. moved by the petitioners at the fag end
of the proceedings of the instant writ petitions. In so far as the prayer with regard to the
impleadment of the Governor of Punjab/Chancellor of the universities is concerned, the Province
of Punjab has been impleaded in the writ petitions and it sufficiently covers the office of the
Governor who is ex-officio Chancellor of the universities of the Punjab whose Vice-Chancellors
are to be appointed. The writ petitions have been finally heard and at this stage I do not think that
the formal and separate impleadment of the Governor of the Punjab/Chancellor of the
Universities would be necessary therefore this request is declined. The prayer for impleadment of
the 89 short listed candidates for interviews by the Search Committee is also without any legal
basis. Since the writ petitions have not been admitted to regular hearing therefore in view of the
orders to be passed for the disposal of the instant writ petitions by me, there is no necessity
' to implead 89 short listed candidates selected for interview purposes. Through the third
C.M. a request has been made for adding the prayer for interim relief in the prayer clause. This
amendment is also without any legal necessity. Moreover in view of the main judgment to be
passed by me I do not think it appropriate to allow this prayer as well. This C.M. is also
accordingly dismissed.

14. All the six universities in which the posts of Vice-Chancellors have fallen vacant and are
intended to be filled, have been statutory bodies and their respective affairs are being run and
managed under separate statutes, the detail of which is reflected as follows:---
 1. The University of Education, Lahore Ordinance, 2002
(Punjab Ordinance L of 2002)

2 The Lahore College for Women University Lahore

Ordinance, 2002 (Punjab Ordinance XLIX of 2002)

3 The Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpindi

Ordinance, 1999 (Punjab Ordinance XLIII of 1999).

4 The Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University Act, 1975 (Punjab

Act . III of 1975)

5 The Government College University, Lahore Ordinance,

2002 (Punjab Ordinance XLVIII of 2002).

All the above statutes recognize the posts of the Vice-Chancellors as one of the four components
of the university,, the other three being the Chancellor, Syndicate and the Academic Council. In
all the stattrtes of the respective universities the Vice-Chancellor is also one of the officers of the
university. In all the above statutes the relevant provisions through a specific section have been
made providing for the ap')ointment of the Vice-Chancellor by the Chancellor on such terms and
condition's as the Chancellor may determine. The statues of all the .above universities further
specifically contain separate sections with common factors dealing with the powers and duties of
the Vice-Chancellor. One of the statutes is the University of the Education, Lahore Ordinance,
2002 and it deals with this aspect in its section 14 and is reproduced below:---

Power and duties of the Vice-Chancellor.---

(1) The Vice- Chancellor shall be the principal executive and academic officer of the University
and shall ensure that the provisions of this Ordinance, the Statutes, the Regulations and
the Rules are faithfully observed in order to promote teaching, research, publication,
administration and the general efficiency and good order of the University. He shall have all
powers necessary for this purpose including administrative control over all officers, teachers and
other employees of the University.

(2) The Vice-Chancellor shall, in the absence of the Chancellor, preside at a convocation of the
University. He shall have all powers necessary for . this purpose including administrative control
over all officers, teachers and other employees of the University and shall preside at the meetings
of the Authorities and other bodies of the University, Divisions and constituent Colleges of
which he may or may not be the head.

(3) The Vice-Chancellor may, in an emergency which in his opinion requires immediate action,
take such action as he may consider necessary and shall, as soon thereafter as possible, report his
action for approval to the officer, authority or other body which in ordinary course would have
dealt with the matter. -

(4) The Vice-Chancellor shall also have the powers to:---

(a) Create and fill temporary posts for a period not exceeding six Months.

(b) Sanction all expenditure provided for in the approved budget and to re-appropriate funds
within the same major head of expenditure.

(c) Sanction by re-appropriation an amount not exceeding one hundred and fifty thousand rupees
for an unforeseen item not provided for in the budget and report is to the Syndicate at the next
meeting.

(d) Appoint paper setters and examiners for all examinations of the University after receiving
panels of names from the relevant Authorities.
(e) Make such arrangements for the scrutiny of papers, marks and results as he may consider
necessary.

(f) Direct teachers, officers and other employees of the University to take up such assignments in
connection with teaching, research, examinations, administration and such other activities in the
University as he may consider necessary for the purpose of the University.

(g) Delegate, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be prescribed, any of his powers under
this Ordinance, to an officer or officers of the University.

(h) Exercise general control and supervision over the system of examination of the University.

(i) Exercise and perform such other power and functions as may be prescribed.

(j) Appoint visiting professors in various disciplines for a period not more than one academic
year on the terms and conditions as prescribed; and

(k) Appoint employees below the rank of lecturer or any equivalent officer.

Similar statutory provisions have been added in the statutes of the other universities with a
difference of serial number of the section only. The perusal of the powers and duties of the Vice-
Chancellor therefore highlights that the Vice-Chancellor of each such university is the
Principal .Executive and Academic Officer of the university who shall ensure the enforcement of
the provisions of the Ordinance, statutes, the regulations and rules and shall promote general
functioning and good orders of the university and has been conferred upon all the powers for the
above mentioned purposes and is thus entrusted with the administrative control over all the
officers, teachers, students and employees of the university. Thus the post of a Vice-Chancellor is
combination of multidimensional academic as well as of personal qualities touching the matters
of the administration as well as the working of the university. The matter of appointment of the
Vice-Chancellor of the university has thus been entrusted to the Chancellor of the university
which office is ex-officio combined with that of the Governor of the province. The terms and
conditions for the appointment of Vice-Chancellor therefore .in all the statutes governing six
universities have to be determined by the Chancellor of the university.

15. The learned Additional Advocate General has in this respect placed on record an earlier
notification dated 7-1-2005 issued by the Governor/Chancellor which notification is reproduced
below:---

GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

(Higher Education Wing)

7th January, 2005

NOTIFICATION

No. S.O,(Univ.)6-2/2000.--- In supersession of this department notification of even No. dated

10th August, 2004. The Governor/Chancellor has been pleased to , constitute the following
Standing Search Committee for selection of suitablepersons for appointment as Vice-Chancellor
of Universities as and when required:--

(i) Syed Babar Ali, Pro-Chancellor, Lahore University of Convener

Management Sciences(LUMS)

(ii) Mr. Sartaj Aziz, Vice-Chancellor, Beaconhouse National Member

University, Lahore

(iii)Lt. Gen. (R) Muhammad Akram Khan, Vice-Chancellor, Member

University of Engineering and Technology Lahore
(iv) Mr. Khushnood Akhtar Lashari, Additional Chief Member
Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore

(v) Secretary, Higher Education Department Government of Ex-Officio/ Secretary of

the Punjab the Committee

By Order of the Governor/Chancellor

SHAHID RASHID SECRETARY EDUCATION

A copy of the minutes of the 2nd Chancellor 's Committee meeting held on 11-5-2006 at the
office of the then President's Secretariat (Camp office) Rawalpindi under the auspicious of
federal government has also been placed on the record in which paragraph No.7 of the
instruction is relevant and is reproduced below:---

"Vice-Chancellors of all Provincial Public Universities should be appointed after advertisement

through a Search Committee process. The Search Committee will be required to put up a panel of
3 names for approval of the Chancellor from whom the Vice-Chancellor may be selected."

The guidelines for selection of Vice-Chancellors have also been put into black and white which
guidelines have been laid down by the Higher Education Commission and which guidelines are
reproduced below:---

"Higher Education Commission A & C Division

Guideline for Selection of the Rector/Vice-Chancellor Introduction Rector or Vice-Chancellor is

fundamentally a leadership position that largely determines destiny of University or a Degree
Awarding Institute. Conceiving a vision and a mission statement and, then leading University
functions of achieving excellence and international compatibilities in academic learning,
research, technological applications, social harmony and development and transparent
governance through guiding, motivating and inspiring faculty and administration are a few of the
core tasks associated with the position of a Rector or Vice-Chancellor. The Guidelines for
Selection of the Rector/Vice-Chancellor are aimed at identifying crucial aspects that need to be
valued by the Search Committee while processing selection of a Rector or Vice-Chancellor.

The Search Committee is encouraged to invite and or nominate potential candidates for the
position of Vice-Chancellor/Rector, in writing, explaining the basis of recommendation and
having been availed willingness - of the nominee to assume the responsibility and honor of
governing a public sector university.

(1) Should preferably have earned doctorate degree in an academic discipline and an outstanding
academician of international statute

(2) Should have attained a distinguished leadership preferably in education and academic
administration and financial management with proven track record of extensive experience and
skills in initiating and managing change, strategic planning and overseeing the implementation of
plans through to outcomes

(3) In-depth knowledge of the major issues affecting learning and teaching in higher education
funding and technological developments

(4) Thorough understanding of the scholarly purposes of a university and of the economic, social
and political issues faced by the higher education sector nationally and internationally

(5) An understanding of the diverse needs of and issues pertaining different disciplines in higher
education and the ability to form and balance priorities relevant to national socio-economic
needs and growth.

(6) Ability to represent the university effectively, nationally and internationally, especially with
government, business and the wider community
(7) In-depth knowledge of the major development in higher education learning and teaching with
ability to create linkage and networks.

(8) Excellent entrepreneurial, negotiating, interpersonal and communication skills with strong
ability to work collaboratively and inspire staff and teams to achieve organizational tasks and
goals.

(9) Commitment to equal opportunity principles, transparent government and swift response"

16. Lastly the Governor/Chancellor of all the universities has reconstituted a Search Committee
for selection of suitable -persons for appointment as Vice-Chancellor of public sector universities
in Punjab and a notification dated 3-4-2009 has been issued which is reproduced below:---

GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

3rd April, 2009

NOTIFICATION

No. S.O.(Univ.)6-2/2000.--- In supersession of this Department 's Notification of even No. dated
7th January, 2005 and 20th July 2006, the Governor/Chancellor has been pleased to appoint the
following Standing Search Committee for selection of suitable persons for appointment as Vice-
Chancellor of Public Sector Universities in Punjab as and when required:---

(i) Syed Babar Ali, Pro-Chancellor, Lahore University of Convener

Management Sciences(LUMS)

(ii) Mr. Sartaj Aziz, Vice-Chancellor, Beaconhouse National Member

University, Lahore

(iii)Lt. Gen. (R) Muhammad Akram Khan, Vice-Chancellor, Member

University of Engineering and Technology Lahore

(iv) Mr. Khushnood Akhtar Lashari, Additional Chief Member

Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore

(v) Secretary, Higher Education Department Government of Ex-Officio/ Secretary of

the Punjab the Committee

By Order of the Governor/Chancellor

SECRETARY High EDUCATION

NO. AND DATE EVEN.

A copy is forwarded for information/necessary action to:

(1) P.S. to Principal Secretary to Governor, Punjab

(2) P.S. to'Chief Secretary Punjab, Lahore

(3) P.S. to Secretary, Higher Education Department, Govt. of the Punjab

(4) All the members of the committee

(5) Notification File.

SECTION OFFICER (UNIV.)

17. It is thus observed that the process for the selection of candidates for the appointment to the
posts of Vice-Chancellors of the universities in question have been given a transparent
mechanism of inviting applications through publications in the daily newspapers of the country
which in the present case has been done through the daily Nawai-Waqt dated 19-1-2011 as well
as the daily Jang and Dawn dated 21-1-2011 which fact is specifically stated in the parawise
comments submitted by the respondents and has not been disputed by the petitioners. The
Chancellor i.e. Governor has constituted a Search Committee comprising renowned educationists
and scholars having vast experience extending over more than two decades in heading the well-
known institutions of the country. This step of the Chancellor demonstrates the taking of
practical steps towards the exclusion of 1 arbitrariness and secret decision making process by one
person alone i.e. the Chancellor. The valuable services rendered by the un-official members of
the Search Committee in heading and successfully running the top most universities of the
country needs to be duly acknowledged and merely because those three members are not
themselves holders of PhD degrees as alleged by the petitioners cannot be held to be a factor to
underestimate and undermine their respective scholarly and administrative potentials. Needless
to say that the three educational institutions named against their names being managed by the
above mentioned three un-official members of the Search Committee are undoubtedly availing
the services of numerous Ph.Ds. already forming the respectable members of the respective
faculties of the said institutions.

18. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not attributed any mala fides to the members of
the Search Committee. An attempt has also been made by me to look into the antecedents of the
first three members of the Search Committee which are available on the Internet and are
reproduced below:---

"Syed Babar Ali, Chairman, Packages Limited, Pakistan

As an entrepreneur and industrialist, Syed Babar Ali envisioned and set up Packages Limited
(Pakistan's largest paper and board mill), Milkpak Limited - now Nestle Pakistan Limited - (the
largest food r processing company in Pakistan); Tetra Pak Pakistan Limited, IGI Insurance
Company Limited, Tri-Pack Films Limited, and IGI Investment Bank. He is Chairman of Sanofi-
Aventis Pakistan Limited, Siemens Pakistan Engineering Company Limited, and Coca-Cola
Beverages Pakistan Limited. He believes in the joint venture philosophy and most of his
businesses are joint ventures with major multinationals. As an educationist, he led the
establishment of the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) in 1985 of which he is
the first Pro-Chancellor, LUMS is Pakistan's premier management education institution. In 1992,
he founded Ali Institute of Education for training of primary and secondary school teachers. He
is a member of the Board of the following important educational institutions of Lahore:
Aitchison College, F.C. College, Kinnaird College, and Lahore School of Economics. He is a
member of the Regional Advisory Board of London Business School and a Member of the
Initiative on Social Enterprise of Harvard University. He promoted the cause of the World Wide
Fund for Nature (earlier World Wildlife Fund) where he served in various capacities, both in
Pakistan and internationally, from 1972 , to 1996. He was International President of WWF from
1996 to 1999 succeeding HRH Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh. He is now Vice-President
Emeritus, WWF International, and President Emeritus WWFPakistan. He is Co-Chair of South
Asia Centre for Policy Studies currently based in Nepal. He served as Pakistan's Minister of
Finance, Economic Affairs and Planning in 1993. He set up Babar Ali Foundation in 1985. The
Foundation gives about a million dollars a year primarily for education and health in Pakistan.
He is also a member of Layton Rehmatullah Benevolent Trust Karachi and Shalamar Hospital
Lahore. He received honours and awards from the Government of Sweden, the Netherlands, an
OBE from_Britain (1997), and was awarded an Honorary Doctorate Degree of Laws from
McGill University, Montreal, Canada (1997).

Mr. Sartaj Aziz,

A recognised development economist hails from the spiritual Kakakhel family of N.-W.F.P. He
was born on 7th February, 1929 and obtained a Degree in Commerce from the Punjab University
in 1949. In 1962, he proceeded to Harvard University (USA) where he earned a Master's Degree
in Public Administration (Economic Development). He also got training and acquired expertise
in development planning and management sciences. He joined Government service in 1950,
held various posts and rose to the level of a Joint Secretary in the Planning Commission in 1967.
He was one of the principal contributors to the Third and Fourth Five-Year Plans of Pakistan. Mr.
Sartaj Aziz started his international career in 1971 in Rome, Italy and held important positions in
the United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organisation (1971-75), World Food Council (1975-
77) and International Fund for Agricultural Development (1978-84). He participated in a number
of international conferences and was an active participant in the North-South dialogue and
South-South Cooperation. Mr:. Sartaj Aziz started his political career in April 1984 when he
returned to Pakistan and joined the Federal Cabinet as Minister of State for Food, Agriculture
and Cooperatives. He was elected as. a Senator from N.-W.F.P. in 1985 and returned again to the
Senate of Pakistan from the Federal Capital Territory in March, 1988 for a six-year term. He was
again elected as a Member of the Senate from the N.-W.F.P. Province in March, 1994 for another
six-year term. Mr. Sartaj Aziz was appointed as Special Assistant to the Prime Minister in
October 1985, Minister of State for Food and Agriculture in January, 1986, and Federal Minister
for Food, Agriculture and Rural Development in June, 1988. He served as Federal Minister for
Finance, Planning and Economic Affairs from August, 1990 to July, 1993, In July, 1993, Mr..
Sartaj Aziz was appointed as Secretary General of Pakistan Muslim League (N). Mr. Sartaj Aziz
is holder of the Sanad, Mujahid-e-Pakistan by virtue of his participation in the Pakistan
Movement. He was awarded Tamgha-e-Pakistan and Sitara-e-Khidmat in 1959 and 1967
respectively for his contribution to planning and development in the country. Senator Sartaj Aziz
is Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Kashmir Affairs and Northern
Affairs and a member of the Senate Standing Committees on Finance and Economic Affairs,
Food and Agriculture.

Lt. Gen. (R) Muhammad Akram Khan;

is a renowned educationist and has been the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Engineering
and Technology Lahore since the year 1997 and his tenure has been continuously extended
eversince his appointment and the last extension was granted to him vide notification dated 12-
10-2010 for further period of four years and although was assailed through a Writ Petition
No.5841 of 2011 but his appointment was upheld by a learned single Judge of this Court through
judgment announced on 18-5-2011 in the said writ petition.

He has vast experience of running: as Vice-Chancellor a ' renowned university of Lahore namely
University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore.

19. The parawise comments of the respondents give the specific details of the evaluation criteria
determined in the meeting dated 8-3-2011 of the members of the Search Committee for short
listing fhe candidates and which is reproduced below:---

EVALUATION CRITERIA

TOTAL MARKS: 100

Academic Experience:30 Interview:40

Qualification:30

Ph.D. 30 Maximum Academic experience 15 Interview marks shall be

Marks 25 Marks will Maximum Administrative awarded by Standing Search
 be awarded to a Experience 15 Maximum Committee
candidate having Ph.D. Allocation of marks for,
Degree(irrespective of academic or Administrative
foreign or local). 05 Experience will be .as under: *
marks will also be 1 to 5 years - 3 * 6 to 10 years
awarded to Ph.D holder - 6 * 11 to 15 years - 9 *
candidate front one of 16to20years-12 * 821 years
the Top Ranking 500 and above - 15 *
Universities of the Administrative experience will
World for the year include administrative
2010. (Note: Grading assignments in the field of
of Universities made by education. Experience
QS World University (Academic/ Administrative) of
Rankings 2010 will be non- recognized educational
followed.) institutions will not be
considered. Teaching
experience as visiting faculty
will not be considered.

It was also disclosed in the parawise comments as follows:---

The Higher Education Department short listed candidates as per above mentioned criteria
approved by the Search Committee in the transparent manner and 89 candidates were short listed
who obtained marks as under:---

Marks Obtained No. of Candidates

Candidates securing 54 Marks 6

Candidates securing 51 Marks 45

Candidate securing 49 Marks 1

Candidates securing 48 Marks 37

Total Shortlisted Candidates 89

The members of the Search Committee thus scrutinized the eligibility of the candidates on the
basis of the above mentioned evaluation criteria and short listed 89 candidates by allocating the
marks to each candidate on the basis of the above mentioned criteria. These 89 candidates have
been selected for interview purposes to be conducted by the search Committee. The marks
obtained by each of the writ petitioners as per report of the HEC are as follows:

S. Name of candidates Writ Petition Marks

No. No. obtained

1. Dr. Hassan Amir Shah7756 of 2011 43

2. Dr. Shaukat Ali 6963 of 2011 46

3. Dr. Yousaf Hayat Khan 7213 of 2011 45

4. Dr. Maqbool Hussain Sial 8681 of 2011 42

5. Dr. Bushra Khan 9121 of 2011 40

20. All the five writ petitioners therefore fell lower in the merit list as finalized by the Search
Committee constituted for the purpose and were not called upon for interview purposes and the
instant writ petitions have been instituted by all of them. The Court therefore is of the opinion c
that the Search Committee consisting of eminent scholars have been constituted by the Governor
for making recommendations about the selection of candidates on the basis of academic record
as well as of the administrative experience of the respective candidates through a
crediblemechanism on .the basis of an evaluation criteria determined for the purpose by the
members of the Search Committee. The process has been commenc ed by the members of the
Search Committee for selection of candidates through necessary advertisements in the three daily
well known newspapers of the country. The eligibility criteria was given in detail in the
newspapers.

21. The allocation of 5 additional marks to the credit of the qualifications of those who have
obtained their Ph.D degrees from well known top ranking 500 universities of the World cannot
be an act creating discrimination as against Pakistani universities. It is a very wider scope created
for those who have joined the process of acquiring education from the best amongst best
universities/educational institutions of the World. It has not been even argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that this ranking of top 500 universities, which is easily available on
the Internet, has been influenced by any criteria except the best .of the academic qualifications
and learning standards. It is also a matter of universally known ground reality in the education
field that these top ranking universities of the World adopt very systemic methods for granting
admissions to students on purely merit basis. Before allowing admission to the students, they are
made to appear in well-known written examination of SAT, GRE, GMAT, English C Language
Test etc. These are the well known tests through which computer based assessment of the
eligibility of the candidates for admissions to different universities is made and then the students
are allowed to join the research work in the known learning seats of education where research
oriented update educational systems are in progress. We all know that research work and
education standards in the well-known universities in Europe and America are promoting the
works of high quality academic advancement. A student who spends five years in the learning
process of universities of Harvard, Stanford, John Hopkins, NYU, University of South
California, Cambridge University, University of Virginia and many such like seats of learning
compete on merits: with millions of student getting education from all over the world in such like
universities. The PhDs of such universities need to be given due recognition and if the same is
denied to them it will be an act of discrimination against the highly qualified Ph.D. degree
holders from such high ranking universities. The academic standards of these foreign universities
has been surveyed for determining their ranking World over and this ranking has been given due
recognition in the academic and education spheres of the World and no illegality can be found to
be attributable upon giving due recognition to the qualification of such foreign universities.

22. It is also a settled principle of law as recognized by the superior courts of Pakistan that where
there is a reasonable classification made in a particular matter, this step is itself considered as
sufficient in negating the allegations of discrimination. So arguments of the learned counsel for
the petitioners that by allowing 5 , additional marks to an advanced learning undergone by
Ph.D. .degree holders from top ranking 500 universities of the World is an act of C discrimination
has no legal force or factual strength and is repelled. While interpreting the concept of
discrimination the superior courts have approved the powers of the authorities in a particular
matter of making a reasonable classification of equally placed persons. In this regard the
judgments of the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as NADEEM KHAN v.
BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION PESHAWAR AND
ANOTHER (PLD 1993 SC 397), GHULAM MUSTAFA INSARI AND 48 OTHERS v.
GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND OTHERS (2004 SCMR 1903), ALLAH YAR v.
GENERAL MANAGER, RAILWAYS HEADQUARTERS LAHORE AND ANOTHER (2001
SCMR 256), DR. TARIQ NAWAZ AND ANOTHER v. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN,
ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER (2000 SCMR 1956), MST. ATTIYYA BIBI KHAN AND
OTHERS v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
(MINISTRY OF EDUCATION), CIVIL SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS (2001
SCMR 1161), MEHRAM ALI AND OTHERS v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND
OTHERS (PLD 1998 SC 1445) and ABDUL BAQI AND OTHERS v. MUHAMMAD AKRAM
AND OTHERS (PLD 2003 SC 163) may be referred to as the authorities on the subject. The
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the evaluation criteria as determined by
the members of the Committee is discriminatory is not sustainable in the eye of law as it has no
legal force.

23. I would now like to analyse the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the ,
petitioners in support of their arguments. In the reported judgment reported as SHAIKH ZAYED
HOSPITAL AND POST GRAUDATE MEDICAL INSTITUTES THROUGH CHAIRMAN
AND DEAN AND ANOTHER v. DR. MUHAMMAD SAEED AND ANOTHER (2010 PLC
(C.S.) 967) a learned Division Bench of this Court examined the question of appointment of
Chairman and Dean of Slieikh Zayed Post Graduate Medical Institute, Lahore which was being
administered by a duly constituted Board. This institute was transferred to the administrative
control from the Ministry of Health to the Cabinet Division. The post of the Chairman and Dean
of the Medical Institute was being filled since the year 1997 by the Prime Minister on the basis
of the summary put up by the Cabinet Division, the mode prescribed for filling grade-22 posts.
One Professor Dr. Anwar Khan who was a permanent employee of Sheikh Zayed Medical
Complex was promoted as Professor and Head of Department of Gastroenterology in grade-21
under the Meritorious Quota Scheme for Professional and Technical Personnel. He was
appointed as Chairman/Dean in the year 2003 initially in his own pay and scale but subsequently
allowed BPS-21 on substantive basis. The Cabinet Division without adopting any procedure of
inviting applications proposed his name for an extension of further three years in the enhanced
grade-22. On the expiry of his three years tenure he was re-appointed for second tenure in BPS-
22 for three years on 12-7-2006 and third extension was proposed in his tenure by the Cabinet
Division to the Prime Minister and the orders of the Prime Minister were solicited in the matter.
This course of action was assailed through a writ petition on the grounds that the appointment of
said doctor was against the policy and the law. The writ petition was allowed by a learned single
Judge of this Court and the matter came up through an I.C.A. No.32 of 2010 before a learned
Division Bench of Court and in paragraph No.40 it was observed as follows:

"Perusal of the appointment process in general and the process of the impugned appointment in
the year, 2009, in particular shows that there is no uniformity, transparency, certainty or structure
about the process. We have noted that in the absence of Rules and Regulations of the Institute or
Rules under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 the process employed is unguided, unplanned,
unsystematic, arbitrary, aimless, perfunctory, mechanical, haphazard, discrete and unreasonable.
It appears to us that the process was not geared to search and select the best man for the post.
Except in the year, 2001, the Board of Governors of the Institute were never consulted, no effort
was made for the search of best talent through public advertisement nationally or internationally.
Considering the technical nature of the post, it was essential that the Technical Search Committee
should have been constituted by the Institute and the Cabinet Division. Even the role of
Establishment Division has been lukewarm, even though the final responsibility rests on the said
Division in the matters of appointment under the Rules of Business, 1973. Such an unguided and
unstructured process of appointment is facially discriminatory as it blocks merit, cripples
opportunities and impairs the access of talented doctors of this country to the coveted post of
Chairman and Dean of the Institute. Such a loose structure driven on the whims and caprice of a
few invites corruption and nepotism. The process of appointment over the years and the one
adopted in the year, 2009 is most unsatisfactory to say the least and cannot be sustained. At this
stage we wish to make it clear that this decision has no bearing on the credentials and ability of
appellant No.2. We are not concerned with the individuals but with the process."

The Intra-Court Appeal was thus dismissed in the background of peculiar circumstances and
facts of the said case. The cited case does not help and support the case of the present petitioners
as in the present case the applications have been invited through proper advertisements in the
three daily newspapers. A Search Committee was created through a notification by the
Chancellor/Governor of the Punjab. A guidelines for developing evaluation Criteria was issued
by the Higher Education Commission to the Search Committee. The Search Committee
comprises well-known educationists having long experience both on the academic as well as on
the administrative side of managing and running known educational institutions. The evaluation
criteria has also been laid down on the basis of which the candidates have been selected for
interview purposes. It is a matter of record that in all 224 applied for the posts of Vice-
Chancellors and 89 candidates have been short listed. On the basis of the evaluation criteria, the
petitioners did not come up to the mark and they fell short of the merit list and thus only 5 out of
the entire class of applicants of 224 who are not included in the short listed 89 candidates have
assailed the process of selection through the instant writ petitions. The process of constitution of
the Search Committee, through a notification issued by the Chancellor/Governor of the Punjab;
guidelines having been provided by the Higher Education Commission and the evaluation
criteria fixed for selection of candidates bespeak transparency and a credible mechanism having
been evolved in the process.

24. The Indian judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners reported as
VIKRAM SINGH AND ANOTHER v. SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD,
HARYANA AND OTHERS (1991) (1 SUPREME COURT CASES 686) is a case in which a
process for filling the posts of Excise Inspectors in the Exci `s'e and Taxation Department was
commenced through an interview then a written test and thereafter another interview was
prescribed for finalizing the selection of the candidates to be appointed. The matter came up
before the honourable Supreme Court of India and it was held that having already conducted the
interviews of the candidates and then subjecting them to written tests, there was no justification
for holding second interview test by allocating 28.5% of the total marks for the said interview
and it was held to be illegal. Similar was the position in theother judgment cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioners MOHINDER SAIN GARG v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
(1991) (1 SUPREME COURT CASES 662) which also related to the process of appointments of
Excise Commissioner of the Punjab in India when candidates were made to appear first in an
interview and then they appeared in written tests and were again called upon for interviews and
this process and practice was deprecated by the honourable Supreme Court of India.

25. I have also asked the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether he can refer to any of
the Search Committees having been constituted in the World which according to the learned
counsel can be an example of the functioning of Lilt Search Committee for the selection of
candidates for appointment as Vice-Chancellors, the leaned counsel referred to Annex-D at page-
32 from the University of Cambridge, the contents of which document have been examined and
are reproduced below:---

"Office of Vice-Chancellor: Notice.--- The Council has recently commenced the process of
selection of a successor to Professor A.F. Richard whose tenure as Vice-Chancellor will end on
30 September 2010. In accordance with Regulation 1 for the office of Vice- Chancellor (Statutes
and Ordinances, p.659), it has appointed an Advisory Committee consisting of the following
members:-

Professor F. P. Kelly; CHR Chairman

Professor W.A. Brown, DAR Dr. S.J. Cowley, SE

Professor Sir Graeme Davies, CTH

Professor R.J. Evans, CAI

Professor L.F. Gladden, T

Sir Keith O' Nions, CLH

Lord Simon of Highbury, CAI

Professor Dame Jean Thomas, CTH

A further notice will be published in due course to indicate how the Committee will wish to
invite views on the appointment from any interested persons and to provide information about
the process it will adopt."

The perusal of the above contents which is a notice to constitute a committee is not of any help
to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

26. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that 40 marks have been arbitrarily
allocated to the interview portion of the selection process as it caters for a wide uncalled for
discretion in the Search Committee for further excluding the eligible candidates is not
entertainable. In the first place the petitioners have not reached the stage of interview and they do
not have the r locus standi to challenge the allocation of 40 marks. In the instant case it is also
noted that no written test is conducted and the administrative skills and the educational potentials
of the candidates short listed is further to be assessed by the Search Committee finally through an
interview to be conducted and there is no law which can be said to have been violated in this
respect by allocating 40 marks for the purposes of interviews.

27. Similarly the arguments that the evaluation criteria was fixed after the receiving of the
application for the posts in question does not create any bonus point in favour of the petitioners
tarnishing in any manner the transparent process evolved by the Search Committee for the above
purpose. The point of the exclusion of the respective publications of the candidates although
looking interesting and impressive on its face value but has no strength in reality as the Search
Committee is to use all F those publications for assessing the respective eligibility of the
candidates during the interview process. It is during this course that the evaluation of those
publications is to be made relevant to assess the eligibility of the candidates and since the
petitioners were dropped out of the short listed candidates during the earlier evaluation process
therefore the stage for the assessment of their publications was yet to come up.

28. In view of all the above circumstances I hold that the process initiated, conducted and to be
finalized for filling the vacancies in the posts of Vice-Chancellors of the six universities in
question does not suffer from any illegality, is on the face of it transparent and is being
supervised by a Search Committee G comprising well-known educationists of the country which
is working under the guidelines of Higher Education Commission and this Court does not find
any legal flaw 'in the course being adopted by the respondents for the purpose. No cases for
interference having been made by the petitioners in the matter, the instant writ petitions are
accordingly dismissed.

M.A.K./H-211L Petitions dismissed.