Judgment Sheet

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Writ Petition No. 1012/2014.

Dr. Ikramullah…Versus… Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Agricultural University, Peshawar)

Date of hearing …….04.02.2015.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner(s). By Mr. Khushdil Khan, Advocate.

Respondent (s) By M/S Khalid Khan and Muhammad Isa Khan, advocates for Respondent

No.1 to 5.

Mr. Saqib Raza Advocate for Respondent No.6.

Mr. Jehanzeb Meshsud Advocate for Respondent No.7 and 8.

************

ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN.J. On 28.5.2013, the

respondent No.2 invited applications on printed Forms,

through advertisement published in daily “Aaj” for

appointment against the post of Associate Professor BPS-20

(Weed Science), from the eligible candidates having the

following qualification:

“Ph.D in the relevant field from an HEC

recognized University/ Institution plus,

10 (ten) years Teaching/research

2

experience in HEC recognized

University or a Post Graduate Institution

or professional experience in the

relevant field in a National or

International Organization, plus 10 (ten)

research publications (with at least 4

(Four) Publications in the last 5 years) in

HEC recognized journals.

OR

5 (Five) years post Ph.D

teaching/research experience in HEC

recognized University or a Post Graduate

Institution or professional experience in

the relevant field in a National or

International Organization, plus 10

research publications (with at least 4

(Four) publications in the last 5 years) in

HEC recognized journals.”

The petitioner being equipped with the

required qualification i.e. Ph.D degree in Weed Science

applied for the post of Associate Professor lying vacant in

the relevant category of Weed Science. The respondent No.6

to 8 were also in the run for the same position in the same

discipline, therefore, their credentials were placed before the

3

Scrutiny Committee for determination of their eligibility and

quantification wherein all the candidates competing for the

post in question were declared eligible and their names were

referred to the Selection Board for further proceedings at

that end. In pursuance of the recommendation of Scrutiny

Committee, the petitioner alongwith respondent No.6 and 8

were called for interview by the Selection Board and

ultimately, the respondent No.6 to 8 were recommended to

the Syndicate for appointment against the vacant posts of

Associate Professor in Weed Science, which aggravated the

grievance of petitioners, who rushed to knock the door of

this court with the following prayer:

(i) Declare the declaration of eligibility of Respondent

No. 6 & 7 as unlawful, malafide, contrary to the terms

of advertisement and statutes, tainted with favouritism

and nepotism liable to be set aside. Further declare

the recommendation of Respondent No.5 (Selection

Board) in favour of Respondent No.6 & 7 as illegal,

4

unlawful, unjustified, unfair, discriminatory and of

no legal effect.

(ii) Direct the Respondent No.1 to 5 to act in accordance

with law and to consider the Research Project Report,

make correct evaluation as teacher and award the

requisite marks for the recognized Awards received

by petitioner from time to time.

(iii) Restrain the Respondent No.1 & 4 from granting

approval to recommendation of Respondent No.5

(Selection Board) regarding the selection of

Respondent No. 6 & 7 to the post of Associate

Professor and from issuing any notification in this

regard.

(iv) Any other relief as deemed appropriate in the

circumstances of case not specifically asked for, may

also be granted to petitioner.

2. Initially, comments of the respondents were

called for and in the meanwhile the status quo was ordered

to be maintained, however, on 12.5.2014 on request of the

counsel for respondent No.6 & 7, the syndicate was allowed

to proceed with the appointment process of the parties to

Lis, however, the final authority was restrained to pass the

5

final order regarding appointments, till decision of the

instant writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for petitioner vividly

argued that the petitioner is highly qualified having Ph.D

degree in the Weed Science from the university of

Queensland, Australia and now a days pursuing the Post-

Doctorate in Weed Science in U.A.E University, Al-Ain. He

is also performing his duties as lecturer in the Weed Science

Department since 3.2.2005 while the respondent No.6 & 7

have qualified their Ph.D degree in Agricultural Bio-Tech

and Agricultural Science from Tsukuba University, Japan

and University of Queensland, Australia respectively. Thus

the respondents are lacking qualification in the relevant

discipline being not equipped with degree in Weed Science,

hence not qualified in terms of advertisement for the post of

6

Associate Professor, BPS-20 in Weed Science Department.

The learned counsel for petitioner also disputed the length of

experience of respondents and argued that the petitioner has

been appointed as lecturer in the Department of Weed

Science on regular basis w.e.f 17.2.2003, vide order dated

6.3.2003, thus, he has more experience than the requisite i.e.

10 years, while the respondents No.6 and 7 have been

appointed as lecturer on regular basis on 3.2.2005 w.e.f

18.1.2005, therefore, they have a maximum experience of

teaching in the Weed Science as 8 years 4 months and 27

days which is less than the required experience of 10 years.

He further argued that the Chairman of the Weed Science

Department was also one of the members of the Selection

Board against whom the petitioner had earlier filed a

complaint regarding his corruption and maltreatment with

7

the petitioner. The petitioner, in this regard, has also

submitted application to the Vice Chancellor, Agricultural

University, Peshawar, showing his reservation against the

above mentioned person but with no premium to him. Thus

the Selection Board, in presence of a biased person has not

acted fairly by not awarding him the requisite marks as

commensurate to the knowledge of the petitioner during the

interview and in this view of the matter, the petitioner has

been discriminated by not recommending his name for

selection.

4. The above arguments of learned counsel for

petitioner was strongly refuted by the respondent and argued

that the respondent No.6 and 7 have acquired their Ph.D

degrees in Weed Science from the renowned Universities of

the world. The respondent No. 7 is MSc (Hons) from the

8

University of Peshawar and has obtained his Ph.D degree

from the university of Queensland, Australia in agricultural

science discipline calling major subject area of Weed

Science. No doubt, the text appearing on the title of the

degree conveying the word “Doctor of Philosophy in the

field of Agricultural Science” but reading the same in

juxtaposition with thesis submitted by the respondents would

abundantly make it clear that the subject area of his

philosophy was “Weed Science”, because the title of the

thesis, submitted by the respondent No.7, is “Long term

sustainable management of parthenium weed (Parthenium

Hysterophorus L.) using suppressive pasture plants.”

Parthenium Hysterophorus is a species of flower plant

commonly known as whitetop weed which has been

remained area of research of respondent. Likewise, the

9

respondent No.6 has joined the service with the university as

a lecturer in Weed Science and had acquired her Ph.D

degree from the university of Tsukuba, Japan in Weed

Science. It is also born out of the record that the respondent

No.6 and 7 are serving the university since 2002, having

overall experience of 11 years in teaching of Weed Science.

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2 while clarifying

biasness of one of the members of Selection Board namely

Azeem Khan argued that the Chairman of the concerned

Department by virtue of section 4-1 (d) of the University

Ordinance, 1981 saved under clause 45 (f) of the Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa University Act, 2012 is a statutory member,

moreso, when Mr. Azeem Khan was not the sole member of

the committee nor having any influence on the Vice

Chancellor / chairman of the Committee. The petitioner has

10

appeared before the Selection Board, therefore, he is stopped

by his own conduct to urge the malafide on the part of an

honourable member who is head of the concerned

department, learned counsel for the respondents lastly added.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties, perusal of record would reveal that the post of

Associate Professor (BPS-20) in Department of Weed

Science was advertised by the respondent No.2 against

which the petitioner as well as respondent No.6 to 8

submitted application on printed forms, for appointment.

The credentials of the candidates were examined by the

Scrutiny Committee and were placed before the Selection

Board. The Selection Board in its 79th meeting held on

12.3.2014 recommended the respondent No. 6 to 8 for

appointment as Associate Professor, BPS-20 in the

11

Department of Weed Science in order of merit position i.e.

Dr. Ijaz Ahmad Khan with 60.34- Score out of 100, Dr.

Saima Hasham having 56.10 marks out of 100 and Dr.

Naeem Khan securing 51.46/100. The recommendation of

Selection Board got approbation of the syndicate in its

meeting dated 13.5.2014 but the notification is awaited due

to restraint order passed by this court. The contention of

learned counsel for the petitioner regarding Ph.D degree of

respondent No.6 and 7 is misconceived and unpersuasive.

No doubt, the Ph.D degree of respondent No. 6 and 7 reflect

that the same have been conferred by the University in the

field of Agricultural Science but the same has been clarified

by the concerned universities that the incumbents have

completed their thesis in Weed Science. For better

understanding and clarification, we deem it appropriate to

12

reproduce the letters of clarification issued by the respective

Universities.

The letter of Tsukuba University dated

15.4.2014 regarding Ph.D degree of respondent No.6 is as

under:

“To whom it may concern.

“It is certified that I was the advisor of

Dr.Saima Hashim during her Ph.D . Her thesis title was

“Mechanism of Trifluralin Resistance in Alopecurus

aequalis” and her PhD research paper was published in

Weed Science, the oldest journal of Weed Science. Her

research was on Herbicides Resistance, which is the major

problem that must be solved in present day Weed Science.

There is no doubt that her degree is in weed science.

Your sincerely

Hiroshi Matsumoto, PhD

Professor, Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences

Director, Center in Research for Isotopes and Environmental

Dynamics, University of Tsukuba,

Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8572

Japan.

Similarly the letter dated April 2014, issued by the

principal supervisor of respondent No.7 at tropical and sub-

13

tropical weed research unit, the school of Agriculture and food

science, the University of Queensland, Australia read as under:

“Dr. Naeem Khan.

To whom it may concern,

Dr. Naeem Khan lived for 4 years in Australia

conducting research studies for his PhD under my supervision

and that of Dr’s Doug George and Chris O’Donell at the

University of Queensland, Brisbane. He carried out his PhD

studies on the “Long term sustainable management of

parthenium weed (Parthenium Hysterophorus L.) using

suppressive pasture plants’. This research work involved both

glasshouse and field work and looked at how certain pasture

plants could suppress the growth of parthenium weed, a

significant invasive alien weed of more than 30 countries, in

an attempt to find ways of better managing this weed.

Dr. Khan completed the PhD program in early

2011 and the evaluation was completed by external weed

science experts in September, and as a result of this process

was awarded his PhD degree on 29th September 2011. The

subject area of his thesis was “Weed Science”.

During his stay at the university of Queensland,

Australia, Dr. Khan obtained research skills in many areas of

Weed Sciences, in particularly in the biology and management

of one of the world’s most important invasive alien weeds,

parthenium weed.

He was an efficient, hard working, enthusiastic

young professional researcher with a very friendly and caring

manner, Dr. Khan fitted well into the Tropical and Subtropical

14

Weeds Research Unit within the School of Agriculture and

Food Sciences, The University of Queensland. I confirm that

the subject area of his PhD study was “Weed Science”. Dr.

Khan has also published papers in both national and

international high impact factor journals, all within the

subject area of “Weed Science”.

Yours sincerely

Steve Adkins

Professor

6. The perusal of the above referred to letters would

make it abundantly clear that both the respondents have

completed their studies of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of

Weed Science. The appearance of word “Agricultural Science”

does not exclude the research and thesis of the respondents,

manifestly done in the Weed Science specialty. Agricultural

science is a study of the science and technology underlying the

principles practices of agriculture. It aims to develop

knowledge, skill and attitude concerning the factors that affect

the long term well being of agricultural resources, and places

15

emphasis on the managed uses of these resources. The studies

in agricultural science include Agriculture, Agriculture

Extension, Agronomy, Crop Production, Entomology, Fiber

Technology, Food Science and Technology, Food Technology,

Forestry, Horticulture, Nutrition, Plant Breeding and Genetics,

Plant Pathology, Plant Protection, Soil and Environmental

Sciences, Water Management and Weed Science. In our view

the word “Agricultural Science” has been used in the broad

spectrum because the Weed Science alongwith above mentioned

other 17 subject areas are the discipline of Agricultural Science.

The agricultural science, in fact, is not a separate independent

discipline rather is used as overall consolidative discipline

named for the above mentioned studies and subjects, thus

reference to “Agricultural Science” on the title of the degree

would not be sufficient to exclude the respondents from

16

competition for the subject post, most particularly in the

circumstances when their research area of thesis for Ph.D degree

was Weed Science. In our view, the petitioner being well-

equipped and having fair knowledge about the modern

agricultural sciences and terminology, should have not raised

cavil to the Ph.D degree of respondents. The respondent No.6

and 7 are in possession of Ph.D degrees in the relevant field

(Weed Science), from the Universities, duly recognized by the

Higher Education Commission.

7. Adverting to the other limbs of arguments of

petitioner regarding comparison of experience of petitioner and

respondents No. 6 and 7, suffice it to say that the petitioner as

per the averment of writ petition has entered into the university

as lecturer vide order dated 6.3.2003, w.e.f 17.2.2003 and since

then teaching the Weed Science. Likewise the respondent No. 6

17

and 7 have joined the same University as lecturer w.e.f

16.9.2002, hence their overall experience of teaching in the

weed subjects comes to eleven years, despite the fact that the

requisite experience for the post in question is prescribed as ten

years. The contention of the counsel for petitioner that

experience shall be reckoned from the regular appointment

stands to no sound reasons. For the purpose of experience it is

not necessary that a person must be serving against a post on

regular basis. If a person teaching in a University, particularly at

Post-Graduate level without taking any remuneration, it cannot

be said that he has gained and acquired experience without any

wages is not entitled for its benefits. Experience acquired in any

manner cannot be taken away from a person merely because he

has not been paid any remuneration or pay for the same.

Experience means the accumulation of knowledge or skill which

18

results from the direct participation in events or activities with

or without any financial benefit. The meaning provided by

Wikipedia (Free Encyclopedia), experience is the knowledge or

mastery of an event or subject gained through involvement in or

exposure to it. From the above definition, it can be easily

gathered that infact, the experience is a process of getting

knowledge or skill from doing, seeing or feeling of things

practically. It is born out from the record that the respondent

No.6 and 7 are teaching the Weed Science in agricultural

University of Peshawar to the B.Sc and M.Sc (Hons) classes

since 2003 and 2002 respectively, thus were having more than

the requisite experience of teaching in the respondent university.

Moreover, as per criteria laid down by the Higher Education

Commission, the counting of experience gained during

private/government job will depend upon the nature of

19

experience and is to be decided by the University Scrutiny

Committee and Selection Board.

8. As far as the contention of the petitioner that he

had made a complaint against Dr. Azeem Khan, member of

the Selection Board, about his corruption the weed department

of University of Agriculture, therefore, was not recommended

for the appointment by the Selection Board due to the malice

on the part of the above named member, is concerned,

suffice it to observe that this court under its constitutional

jurisdiction cannot substitute opinion of the Selection

Board on mere allegation of biasness of one of the member

and that too after losing the chance in the Selection Board.

Besides, on complaint of the petitioner, regarding malice and

biasness of Dr. Azeem Khan,Vice Chancellor, Agricultural

University, constituted a special committee comprising of four

20

members under the chairmanship of Professor Dr. Muhammad

Naeem to probe into the matter. The above referred committee

after investigating the allegations, submitted its report

suggesting punitive action as well as initiating disciplinary

proceedings against the complainant/petitioner for leveling false

and baseless allegations against the Scrutiny Committee and

member of the Selection Board. In nutshell the allegation of

malafide on the part of Dr. Azeem Khan, Chairman of the Weed

Science Department has properly been addressed by the

respondents. Moreover, the Chairman of the Department of

Weed Science was statutory member, thus, his membership to

the selection board cannot be controverted on the mere

allegation of biasness. Besides, the selection board consist of

seven members under the chairmanship of Vice Chancellor of

the Agricultural University and Dr. Azeem Khan was not the

21

sole member of the board to target the petitioner. As discussed

in the preceding paras, the High Court in exercise of

constitutional jurisdiction under article 199 of the Constitution

of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is not expected to perform the

functions of the selection authority in appointment matters so as

to substitute its opinion for the competent authority. There is

also no measuring apparatus with this court to determine that the

petitioner was deferred and not recommended for appointment

by the Selection Board for the sole reason of his allegations

against Dr. Azeem Khan. In this respect, reliance may be placed

on judgments of august Supreme Court of Pakistan rendered in

case titled “Dr. Mir Alam Jan Vs Dr. Muhammad Shehzad

(2008 SCMR 960), “Asif Mehmood Chughtai, Advocate and 17

others Vs Govt: of the Punjab through Chief Secretary and

others” (2000 SCMR 966), “Muhammad Ashraf Sangri Vs

22

Federation of Pakistan and others” (2014 SCMR 157), and

“Arshad Ali Tabbasum Vs the Registrar, Lahore High Court,

Lahore” (2005 SCMR 112).

9. From the above discussion, it is abundantly clear

that the university authorities have carried the entire process of

appointment in transparent manner and properly assessed the

credentials and experience of the candidate in accordance with

the terms enumerated in the advertisement for the post. Even

otherwise, it is settled law that in exercise of constitutional

jurisdiction, high court does not set as a court of appeal over the

decisions of statutory bodies. In the judgment, rendered by this

court in the recent past in case titled “Dr. Rozina Gul Vs the

Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa etc” W.P No 3355-

P/2013, it was held that ‘it is not the purpose and the remedies

under Article-199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of

23

Pakistan, 1973, to take away from those authorities the power

and discretion properly vested in them by law and to substitute

this court as a body, making the decision. The function of the

constitutional court under article 199 of the Constitution of

Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is not to exercise an

independent discretion of its own. It must not interfere in the

decision of statutory bodies, unless it finds that the purported

exercise of the discretion by the statutory body was ultra vires,

either because it was exercised in bad faith or because as a

result of misconstruing the provisions of the statute by which

the discretion was conferred, it has purported to exercise the

discretion when the conditions precedent to its exercise were

not fulfilled or in exercising it, it has taken into consideration

some matters which the statute forbids to be taken into

24

consideration or it has failed to take into consideration some

matter which the statute required to take into consideration.

10. In wake of the above discussion, this Writ Petition,

being devoid of merit is dismissed.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Announced on

4th February, 2015

*Amir Khan*