Summary: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973—Arts. 199, 201, 175F(1)(c) & 25A—Judicial review—Constitutional jurisdiction of High Courts—Equitable relief—Compassion and conscience of Judge—Courts as courts of law and not of personal sentiment—The Federal Constitutional Court held that High Courts, while exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199, are strictly bound to decide cases in accordance with law and cannot grant relief on the basis of compassion, hardship, equity, or personal notions of justice where no legal right or statutory basis exists. The Court emphasized that Pakistan’s constitutional order is founded on rule of law and constitutionalism, under which judges are required to interpret and apply the law rather than substitute it with individual morality or subjective conscience. It was held that the Constitution does not confer upon High Courts any general authority to do “complete justice” or to fill perceived gaps in law through equitable intervention, and that every case must be adjudicated within constitutional and statutory limits. Constitutional jurisdiction—Mandamus—Requirement of pre-existing legal duty and enforceable legal right—No writ can issue in absence of law—The Court held that a writ of mandamus under Art. 199(1)(a)(i) can only issue where the law imposes a duty upon a person or authority and a corresponding legal right exists in favour of the petitioner. In the present case, there was admittedly no law, rule, or regulation permitting a “special/super supplementary examination” for the respondent MBBS student. Therefore, the Sindh High Court acted without lawful authority in directing the University to conduct such examination and in effectively creating, through judicial order, a power and duty not recognized by law. The impugned direction was thus held to be beyond the permissible scope of mandamus and an instance of judicial overreach. Educational institutions—Autonomy in academic matters—Judicial restraint—Special/super supplementary examination—The Federal Constitutional Court reiterated that courts must sparingly interfere in the internal governance, academic structure, and disciplinary affairs of educational institutions, which possess specialized expertise and are entitled to regulate their own examinations and policies in accordance with law. Since the statutes and academic framework governing the medical university did not contemplate or permit a “special/super supplementary examination,” the Sindh High Court could not, under the guise of equitable relief or enforcement of rights, compel the University to hold an examination unknown to law. Judicial intervention in educational matters was held permissible only where the governing rules or policies offend natural justice or transgress statutory or constitutional limits, which was not the case here. Fundamental rights—Art. 25A—Right to education—Limits of enforcement jurisdiction—The Court observed that although Art. 25A recognizes the right to education, the enforcement of a fundamental right under Art. 199(1)(c) does not authorize a High Court to grant disproportionate or legally unsanctioned relief. Even in matters touching upon fundamental rights, the High Court remains confined by law and cannot invent remedies contrary to the statutory framework. The Court further found that the respondent’s plea that the relevant examination schedule was not uploaded on the website lacked substance, particularly when he admittedly appeared in the other supplementary examinations and the record showed that all other students were aware of the timetable. Precedent—Arts. 189 & 201—Binding effect of superior court judgments—Court cannot confine precedential value of its own decision—The Federal Constitutional Court held that once a court delivers a judgment deciding a question of law or laying down a principle of law, such judgment enters the stream of precedent and cannot be insulated by the court itself through a direction that it shall not serve as precedent. Such a course was held to undermine legal certainty, invite arbitrariness, and weaken judicial accountability. The Court emphasized that the doctrine of stare decisis is embedded in the constitutional structure, and that judges remain bound by the principles they pronounce as well as by the precedents of superior courts operating within the relevant constitutional hierarchy. It was further observed that the practice of granting relief in an individual case while disclaiming precedential effect would permit unchecked discretion and destabilize the rule of law. Constitutional structure—Federal Constitutional Court and Supreme Court jurisprudence—Partial disagreement with earlier precedent—The Court observed that while prior jurisprudence of the Supreme Court remains valid unless overruled, the Federal Constitutional Court, within its own constitutional domain, is competent to interpret the law independently. In that context, the Court partially disagreed with the proposition in Director General, National Savings, Islamabad v. Balqees Begum (PLD 2013 SC 174) to the extent it suggested that equity may step in where law has no answer to provide justice, holding instead that even in cases of perceived silence in law, courts must seek answers consistent with constitutional order, legal principle, and precedent rather than resort to free-standing compassion. Case references—The Court referred to and discussed the following authorities: Muhammad Umar Wahid v. University of Health Sciences, Lahore (PLD 2006 SC 300); Dossani Travels Pvt. v. Messers Travels Shop (PLD 2014 SC 1); Director General, National Savings, Islamabad v. Balqees Begum (PLD 2013 SC 174); Riaz Hussain through Legal Representatives v. Chairman Federal Land Commissioner (CPLA Nos. 962, 963 and 964 of 2023); DeShaney v. Winnebago County (489 U.S. 189, 1989); Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (597 U.S. 215); Khalid Mehmood v. Pakistan, through Ministry of Finance (2025); Muhammad Azam Khan Swati v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2023 Islamabad 184); Prof. Dr. Sheikh Israr Ahmed v. Government of Punjab (2025 PLC (C.S.) 182); Muhammad Azam Khan v. Government of N.W.F.P through Chief Secretary NWFP (1998 SCMR 204); and Khyber Medical University v. Aimal Khan (PLD 2022 SC 92). The Court also cited A.K. Brohi’s Fundamental Law of Pakistan and an academic article by Susan A. Bandes on compassion and rule of law. Appeal accepted—Impugned order set aside—Writ petition dismissed—The petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and allowed. The impugned order of the Sindh High Court directing the holding of a “special/super supplementary examination” was set aside, and the respondent’s constitutional petition stood dismissed.

Summary: (a) Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020--- ----S. 37---Alternate remedy---Maintainability of writ petition---Respondent, claiming to be a 1st Class State Subject residing abroad, challenged exclusion from MBBS merit list under the Overseas Pakistani quota---Held, that if aggrieved by the policy or order of the Pakistan Medical Commission (PMC), respondent had a statutory alternate remedy of appeal before the Medical Tribunal under S.37 of the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020---High Court, therefore, erred in exercising writ jurisdiction without directing recourse to the prescribed appellate forum. (b) Pakistan Medical & Dental Council Regulations--- ----Medical and Dental Undergraduate Education (Admissions, Curriculum and Conduct) Policy and Regulations, 2023---Eligibility for Overseas Quota---Interpretation---PMC’s letter dated 23.12.2022 mandated that candidates seeking admission under the 10% Overseas Pakistani quota must possess dual or permanent foreign nationality and have completed HSSC or equivalent from abroad while residing abroad on a permanent residence permit---First merit list issued by the Joint Admission Committee was not in conformity with PMC’s criteria---Final merit list prepared in compliance with PMC’s instructions was valid and binding---Respondent having admitted his ineligibility and failure to meet the prescribed criteria could not claim a vested right to admission merely based on a provisional list. Cited Case: • Pakistan Medical Commission through President v. Huma Anwar (2020 SCR 348) (c) Constitutional Jurisdiction--- ----Estoppel and acquiescence---Doctrine applied---Respondent, having participated in the admission process without objecting to PMC’s policy, was estopped from subsequently challenging the same---Held, that the High Court’s direction to grant admission on the basis of the first merit list was contrary to law and not sustainable. (d) Academic policy--- ----Future applicability---The Medical and Dental Undergraduate Education (Admissions, Curriculum and Conduct) Policy and Regulations, 2023 now govern all future admissions, and the Joint Admission Committee is bound to adhere to them till any change by competent authority. Disposition: ---Appeal allowed. ---Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside; directions issued that future admissions be governed by the 2023 Regulations.

Summary: (a) Higher Education Commission Act, 2002 – Compliance with HEC Regulations for Doctoral Programs Non-Compliance by Universities – Ph.D. Program Criteria – Faculty Requirements The Supreme Court held that universities must strictly comply with the Higher Education Commission (HEC) regulations for offering doctoral programs. Failure to engage full-time, permanent Ph.D. faculty members and meet the minimum quality standards constitutes a violation of HEC rules. Non-compliance risks the academic validity of the degrees awarded under such programs. Cited Case: Not Applicable (b) Student Rights – Validity of Ph.D. Degrees – Institutional Responsibility The Court observed that students enrolled in non-compliant Ph.D. programs are the ultimate sufferers. Universities must prioritize student welfare and ensure that degrees awarded meet the HEC's standards to avoid rejection of qualifications. The responsibility lies with both the institution and regulatory authorities to safeguard student interests. Cited Case: Not Applicable (c) Resolution Mechanism – University-HEC Collaboration – Committee Formation To address the issues of non-compliance, the Court directed the formation of two three-member committees—one by the University and one by the HEC. These committees are tasked with resolving the deficiencies collaboratively, ensuring that the doctoral program in law meets HEC standards. Cited Case: Not Applicable (d) Faculty Recruitment Challenges – Interim Solutions – Visiting Faculty The Court acknowledged the difficulty faced by the University in hiring permanent Ph.D. faculty members. It allowed discussions on appointing senior advocates as visiting faculty members as an interim solution, subject to HEC approval and compliance with regulations. Cited Case: Not Applicable (e) Oversight and Compliance Reporting – HEC’s Role as Final Authority The HEC was tasked with independently evaluating compliance with its regulations without being influenced by the findings of the High Court. The HEC must ensure transparent oversight and submit a compliance report within two months. ----Disposition: The Supreme Court disposed of the petitions by directing both the University and HEC to collaboratively resolve compliance issues through designated committees. The process must be completed within two months, with a compliance report submitted to the Court for review in chambers.

Summary: Against the impugned recommendations of the review committee dated 19.2.19 and also seeks direction to allow the changes in the thesis of the petitioner and award him PHD Degree. (a) Education Law – Ph.D. Degree Completion – Institutional Autonomy – Judicial Review ---- National University of Modern Languages (NUML) Regulations – Examination Rules, 2018 – Examination Regulations, 2001 – Regulation 5.3 & 5.14(i) – Higher Education Commission (HEC) Policy – Held, academic institutions have the right to set disciplinary and educational policies – Courts should not interfere in university matters unless there is a clear violation of fundamental rights or statutory provisions – The petitioner failed to complete Ph.D. degree requirements within the prescribed 8-year period as per Regulation 5.3, leading to NUML’s decision to award an M.Phil instead of Ph.D. – Such decision is within NUML’s discretion and does not warrant judicial intervention. (b) Deadline for Ph.D. Completion – Application of University Regulations ---- NUML Examination Regulations, 2001 – Regulation 5.3 – Regulation 5.14(i) – Held, as per NUML’s academic regulations, Ph.D. degree must be completed within a maximum of 8 years – Petitioner’s failure to finalize thesis by 31.01.2019, as required by the Board of Advanced Studies and Research (BASR), led to automatic disqualification from Ph.D. candidacy – University decisions made in compliance with statutory regulations cannot be overruled by the court. (c) Judicial Restraint in Educational Matters – Role of Courts ---- PLD 2022 SC 92 – PLD 2024 SC 789 – 2023 SCMR 198 – Held, courts must exercise restraint in interfering with university decisions unless such decisions exceed statutory authority or violate fundamental rights – NUML’s decision was in accordance with its regulations and did not infringe upon any legal or constitutional rights of the petitioner. (d) Ph.D. Defence Examination – Requirement for Completion ---- NUML Examination Rules, 2018 – Rule 5.31 – Held, a Ph.D. candidate is required to pass a Thesis Defence Committee (TDC) evaluation – If a candidate fails, TDC may recommend re-defence unless performance is extremely poor – Petitioner was given an opportunity for re-defence but failed to complete the required changes before the deadline of 31.01.2019 – NUML’s decision to award an M.Phil degree instead was justified. (e) University's Internal Governance – Judicial Precedents ---- Khyber Medical University v. Aimal Khan (PLD 2022 SC 92) – Hafsa Habib Qureshi v. Ameer Hamza (PLD 2024 SC 789) – Aina Haya v. Principal Peshawar Modern Girls High School (2023 SCMR 198) – Held, academic institutions should have the freedom to regulate admissions, academic evaluations, and disciplinary matters without undue judicial interference – Unless the university exceeds its statutory authority or violates constitutional rights, courts should not substitute their opinions for that of academic bodies. Disposition: ---- Writ petition dismissed – NUML’s decision to award M.Phil degree instead of Ph.D. upheld – No violation of law or university regulations found – Judicial restraint exercised to respect university autonomy in academic decisions.

Summary: ----Quote: Policy decisions require political judgment, not legal interpretation. ----Judicial Review of Policy Decisions—Outsourcing Public Schools: Courts are reluctant to interfere in policy decisions of the government unless illegality, voidness, or violation of fundamental rights is evident. Outsourcing underperforming public schools through the Public School Reorganization Program (PSRP) is a valid exercise of the government's policymaking authority. Reference Statutes: Punjab Education Foundation Act, 2004, Section 13-A; Punjab Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2014; Article 25-A, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Citations: Government of Punjab vs. Ghulam Mustafa (2023 SCMR 1489); Lahore Development Authority vs. Imtiaz Ahmad (2021 SCMR 199). ----Validity of Public-Private Partnership in Education: The outsourcing policy aligns with the statutory framework of the Punjab Education Foundation Act, 2004 and is implemented under cabinet approval. Section 13-A grants the government authority to direct the Foundation, ensuring compliance with legislative mandates. Citations: Punjab Education Foundation vs. Allah Ditta (2022 PLC 225); Federation of Pakistan vs. Khan Education Trust (2018 SCMR 1350). ----Autonomy of Punjab Education Foundation (PEF): PEF operates under the regulatory oversight of the School Education Department as per the Punjab Rules of Business, 2011. It is not an independent autonomous body but an instrumentality of the government for implementing education policies. Citations: Government of Punjab vs. Haji Abdul Hameed (2021 CLC 785); Government of Punjab vs. Ijaz Ahmed (2019 PLC 148). ----Allegations of Fee Increase and Violation of Article 25-A: Claims regarding fee increases were unsupported by evidence. The PSRP explicitly prohibits fee hikes under its licensing terms. There is no violation of the constitutional guarantee of free education under Article 25-A. Citations: Province of Punjab vs. Farzana Basharat (2020 PLC 260); Abdul Ghani vs. Province of Sindh (2016 PLC 95). ----Judicial Deference to Policy Decisions: Courts respect the executive’s policy-making domain, particularly in politically sensitive matters like education reform. Decisions regarding public-private partnerships to manage underperforming schools fall within the purview of the government’s administrative discretion. Citations: Messrs Pak Telecom Mobile Limited vs. Muhammad Atif Bilal (2024 SCMR 719); Muhammad Atif Bilal vs. National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (2022 SCMR 1140). ----Cabinet Approval for the PSRP: The Public School Reorganization Program (PSRP) received cabinet approval, reflecting deliberation on objectives, phased implementation, and fiscal impact. This strengthens the program's legitimacy as a policy initiative. Citations: Federation of Pakistan vs. A.G. Sindh (2019 SCMR 2040); Shehla Zia vs. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693). ------ Outcome: Petitions Dismissed: The outsourcing of underperforming schools under the PSRP was upheld as lawful, constitutional, and in line with statutory objectives. No evidence of fee increases or rights violations was presented to warrant judicial intervention.

Summary: Pakistan Engineering Council impugns decision by Board of HEC wherein degree of Bachelor in Engineering was declared as equivalent to BTECH, A degree of non-engineers. (a) Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002 (Ordinance LIII of 2002): ----S. 10(a), (e), (o), (q) & 20---Scope of authority of Higher Education Commission (HEC)---Equivalence of degrees---Jurisdiction of HEC vis-à-vis recruitment and promotion criteria---HEC issued a notification declaring B.Sc. Engineering and B-Tech (Honors) as equivalent for purposes of grade determination and promotion---Validity---HEC, under its statutory mandate, was empowered to grant equivalence to academic and educational qualifications, but such equivalence was limited to academic comparability and did not extend to recruitment or promotion matters within public or private sector employment---HEC lacked authority to impose its equivalence determinations on employers regarding hiring or promotion criteria---HEC's role was restricted to granting academic equivalence, and any notification directing employers to treat two qualifications as interchangeable for employment purposes was ultra vires---Impugned notification issued by HEC was beyond its statutory jurisdiction and was therefore set aside. (b) Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975 (V of 1976): ----Ss. 2(xii), 2(xxv), 8, 10, 11, 14 & 27---Jurisdiction of Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC) vis-à-vis professional accreditation and employment criteria---PEC was vested with authority to accredit engineering qualifications for registration as Professional Engineers and to regulate the engineering profession---However, PEC had no jurisdiction to dictate employment or promotion criteria within public or private sector organizations---Professional Engineering Work, as defined in the PEC Act, could only be undertaken by registered Professional Engineers, but the determination of whether a specific job required such work was a factual inquiry to be assessed by the employer, not PEC---Employers retained discretion to determine recruitment and promotion policies independent of PEC's accreditation functions---HEC and PEC both lacked authority to mandate employment conditions beyond their respective statutory roles. (c) Employment & Service Law: ----Scope of employer discretion in recruitment and promotion policies---Competence of government and private employers to determine qualification criteria---Neither HEC nor PEC had the authority to prescribe which qualifications were suitable for employment or promotion---Recruitment and promotion policies were quintessential policy matters to be determined by the employer in accordance with its human resource considerations---HEC's notification purporting to impose an equivalence standard for employment purposes was beyond its statutory authority and unenforceable. ----Cited Cases: • Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar v. Farasatullah (2020 PLC (CS) 1423) • Maula Bux Shaikh v. Chief Minister Sindh (2018 SCMR 2098) • Muhammad Siddique Nasim v. Secretary, Government of Punjab (1987 SCMR 302) • Fida Hussain v. Secretary, Kashmir Affairs (PLD 1995 SC 701) • Nazir-ul-Hasan v. Syed Anwar Iqbal (2014 SCMR 1827) • Mohammad Uneeb Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2022 SC 345) ----Disposition: Petition allowed---Impugned notification dated 08.12.2021 set aside---HEC had no jurisdiction to determine employment or promotion criteria---Employers remained competent to allow B.Sc. Engineering and B-Tech degree holders to compete for jobs and promotions on a level playing field.

Summary: The petition was filed by the All Public Universities BPS Teachers Association (APUBTA), representing approximately 50,000 teachers working in Pakistan's public universities, raising concerns about mismanagement in the public sector universities. The petition sought enforcement of federal and provincial laws governing public universities, citing vacancies in leadership roles and non-compliance with statutory requirements for university governance. Specific issues included the absence of Vice-Chancellors in many universities, acting-charge tenures for several key positions, and inadequate oversight due to non-functional statutory bodies. The petitioners argued that these factors severely impacted educational standards, institutional autonomy, and adherence to laws governing academic institutions. ------- Issues: ------- 1) Whether the failure to fill vacant positions in public universities’ leadership and academic staff affects public sector university governance and autonomy. ------- 2) Whether non-compliance with statutory meeting requirements of governing bodies in universities violates the laws governing these institutions. ------- 3) Whether federal and provincial governments have a duty to enforce laws related to university management and governance under Article 25 and Article 25A of the Constitution. ------- 4) Whether the actions of certain university officials, holding positions past their tenure and engaging in mismanagement, contravene their statutory responsibilities. ------- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The Supreme Court upheld the petition, emphasizing that non-compliance with governance laws in public universities was a matter of public importance affecting citizens' fundamental rights. The Court ruled that: ------- Vacant Positions: All tenured positions, including Vice-Chancellors, must be filled promptly and on merit, with temporary appointments not exceeding six months. Compliance with Laws: All universities must comply with laws governing statutory meetings, academic freedom, and governance. ------- Higher Education Commission (HEC) Ratios: Public universities must adhere to the HEC-prescribed academic-to-non-academic staff ratios to ensure financial sustainability. ------- Mismanagement of Resources: Universities with illegal tenures, financial mismanagement, and issues in governance must immediately address these issues, with oversight from the HEC and the Federal Ministry of Education. ------- Audit and Accountability: A special financial audit by the Auditor-General was mandated for universities showing significant mismanagement to restore accountability. Revival of Student Unions: The Court encouraged universities to revive student unions in a non-sectarian and inclusive manner, promoting dialogue and preventing unrest. The ruling ordered comprehensive measures for compliance and directed the HEC and the Provincial Higher Education Departments to rank universities based on internationally recognized criteria and publish compliance status. Additionally, it instructed translation of this judgment into Urdu for broader dissemination. ------- Citations/Precedents: Aamir Raza Ashfaq v. Minhaj Ahmed Khan (2012 SCMR 6): Established that the position of Vice-Chancellor must not remain vacant, as it affects university functioning and the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution. Syed Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2013 Supreme Court 195): Employees are bound to follow legal mandates and are not obligated to comply with orders that are manifestly illegal.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan:----Arts. 184(3), 4, 9, 25 & 25APublic sector universities—Non-compliance with statutory provisions—Violation of Fundamental Rights—Maintainability under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution.Petitioner, a registered association representing public sector university teachers, filed a petition highlighting non-compliance with statutory provisions governing universities, including the absence of Vice-Chancellors, non-holding of statutory meetings, and appointments to tenured positions being made on an acting basis—Supreme Court held that the petition raised matters of public importance, affecting a fundamental segment of society, i.e., students—Violation of applicable laws resulted in interference with the right to education (Art. 25A), equal treatment under law (Art. 25), right to life (Art. 9), and rule of law (Art. 4)—Court emphasized that public funds must be efficiently utilized, and mismanagement in universities cannot be condoned—Held, petition was maintainable under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution to enforce citizens’ Fundamental Rights.----Cited Cases:Aamir Raza Ashfaq v. Minhaj Ahmed Khan (2012 SCMR 6)Syed Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2013 SC 195)(b) Public Universities—Administrative Irregularities:Failure to appoint Vice-Chancellors—Acting charge appointments—Statutory meetings not held—Lack of accountability.Out of 147 public sector universities, 60 were without Vice-Chancellors, and many key tenured positions, including Registrars, Treasurers, and Controllers of Examinations, remained vacant or were occupied by acting-charge officials—Universities’ governing bodies failed to meet periodically, leading to administrative control shifting to paid employees—Court observed that non-compliance with laws facilitated external interference and compromised academic freedom—Failure to appoint leadership in universities undermined governance and accountability—Supreme Court directed immediate appointment of Vice-Chancellors and tenured officials in compliance with law.(c) Higher Education Commission (HEC) Regulations:Excessive hiring of non-academic staff—Violation of prescribed ratio—Financial unsustainability.HEC prescribed a maximum ratio of 1:1.5 (non-academic staff to academic staff), yet most universities exceeded this limit—In some cases, the ratio was as high as 1:4.73—Court held that unchecked hiring of non-academic personnel led to financial crises in universities and rendered them unsustainable—Directives issued to freeze further hiring of non-academic staff unless specifically approved by governing bodies.(d) Irregular Appointments & Mismanagement:Illegal extension of Vice-Chancellor’s tenure—Non-compliance with statutory provisions—Abuse of office.National Fertilizer Institute of Engineering and Technology, Multan: Vice-Chancellor’s tenure ended in 2018, yet he continued holding office for six years without legal authority—Court declared his tenure illegal, stopped his salary, and directed recovery of undue payments.International Islamic University, Islamabad (IIUI): University misrepresented its status as a non-public sector university, despite receiving the highest government funding—Appointments, including that of President and Vice-President, were made illegally without following statutory provisions—Court removed the President, Rector, and Legal Advisor, citing their failure to uphold university regulations and misuse of authority.Federal Urdu University: Advertisements for key positions were issued in 2019, yet no appointments were finalized—Court ordered fresh advertisements and directed selection to be based on merit and transparency.(e) Student Unions & Academic Governance:Revival of student unions—Democratic representation in universities.Court commended Quaid-i-Azam University for reviving student unions, which were previously banned under General Zia-ul-Haq’s regime—Directed all universities to reinstate student unions in a structured and inclusive manner to ensure formal student representation in governance and avoid disruptive protests—Universities were also directed to prioritize research, community service, and academic competition.(f) Financial Audits & Accountability Measures:Irregular financial practices—Public sector universities to undergo audits—Transparency in governance.Auditor-General of Pakistan directed to conduct a special financial audit of public sector universities, particularly IIUI, where mismanagement and embezzlement were alleged—Universities were prohibited from using funds for non-academic purposes without statutory approvals.Court emphasized removal of encroachments on university land, ensuring proper demarcation, and preventing misuse of hostel facilities by outsiders.(g) Compliance Directives for Federal & Provincial Universities:Immediate implementation of governance and academic reforms.Court issued comprehensive directions to all Federal and Provincial higher education institutions, including:Regular statutory meetings of governing bodies (Boards, Syndicates, Senates).Merit-based appointments for Vice-Chancellors and other tenured positions, with acting-charge tenure limited to six months.Publication of compliance reports by HEC and Provincial Higher Education Departments (HEDs).Mandatory ranking of universities by HEC and HEDs based on international benchmarks.Revival of student unions, provided they remain inclusive and non-sectarian.Strict action against harassment, drug use, and violence in universities.Emphasis on research and publication culture to improve university rankings.----Disposition:Petition allowed—Compliance with university laws mandated—Illegal appointments struck down—Higher Education Commission and Provincial Authorities directed to ensure reforms.

Summary: Background: This petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, challenged the selection criteria for Vice-Chancellors (VCs) of public sector universities in Punjab. The petitioner, an applicant for a VC position, alleged favoritism and discrimination in the selection process. He claimed that the selection committee unfairly favored foreign PhD holders by awarding them higher marks compared to local PhD holders and failed to adhere to a transparent process. The petitioner further argued that some selected candidates had prior terms as VCs, during which their respective institutions faced crises, and that certain selected individuals were close to retirement. -----Issues: 1- Whether the selection criteria awarding higher points to foreign PhD holders over local PhD holders constitutes discrimination in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution. -----2- Whether the process conducted by the selection committee lacked transparency, fairness, or involved favoritism. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the selection criteria, which allocated higher points for foreign PhDs based on QS rankings, was a reasonable classification with a rational nexus to the objective of appointing VCs with the highest qualifications. The Court noted that this criteria aims to raise academic standards by favoring applicants from top-ranked international institutions. The Court determined that the petitioner had accepted the selection criteria by applying and only challenged it after his rejection, which indicated a lack of timely objection. Additionally, the Court found that the general allegations of favoritism and lack of transparency were unsubstantiated. The advertisement clearly specified that only shortlisted candidates would be interviewed, and no individual violations of the selection process were proven by the petitioner. On the petitioner’s claim that foreign PhDs are financially inaccessible to local candidates, the Court emphasized that many international universities offer funding through scholarships and grants, making PhD programs accessible on a merit basis. It further highlighted that Pakistan's constitutional framework allows for reasonable classification under Article 25 and that the economic disparity argument does not invalidate the use of QS rankings to assess institutional excellence. -----Citations/Precedents Dr. Iqrar Ahmad Khan v. Dr. Muhammad Ashraf and others (2021 SCMR 1509) Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and 2 others v. Government of Pakistan and others (PLD 2009 SC 507) Abdul Wahab v. HBL and others (2013 SCMR 1383) Commissioner Inland Revenue v. MCB Bank Limited (2021 PTD 1325) Senior General Manager, Pakistan Railways and others v. Muhammad Pervaiz (2024 SCMR 581) Asad Ali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 161) Lahore Bachao Tehrik v. Dr. Iqbal Muhammad Chauhan and others (2015 SCMR 1520) I. A. Sharwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance Division Islamabad and others (1991 SCMR 1041) UNICEF Report on education in Pakistan UNICEF Report on education in Pakistan (source referenced in judgment)

Summary: ''The appointment of Deans in Public Sector Universities is required to be made in accordance with applicable law; and the Circular dated 29.12.2008 issued by Governor Punjab prescribing additional criteria with respect to appointment of Deans cannot be followed unless the same is incorporated in the relevant Statutes or Regulations or Rules of Public Sector University.'' Background: Three petitions were brought before the court concerning the appointment of Deans at Public Sector Universities (PSU) in Punjab. A circular issued in 2008 by the Governor of Punjab, in his capacity as Chancellor, proposed a multi-factor criterion for appointing Deans at universities. The circular's legality was challenged, with the petitioners arguing that the appointments of Deans at two universities were unlawful and not based on merit. The main issue in the case was whether the circular held any legal authority and if the appointments were made according to law. ----Issues: 1- Does the 2008 circular prescribing criteria for Dean appointments at PSUs have any legal backing? Were the challenged appointments of Deans at the universities done according to the law and statutory provisions? ----2-Does the Governor of Punjab have the authority to prescribe appointment criteria without incorporating it into the universities' statutes or regulations? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Circular's Legal Status: The court held that the 2008 circular lacked legal force because it had not been adopted or incorporated into the relevant statutes, regulations, or rules of the universities. Therefore, it could not serve as a valid criterion for appointments. --Dean Appointments: The court found that the appointments of the Deans in question were made according to the statutes of the universities, which provide that the Dean must be selected from the three most senior professors within the faculty. The court noted that the circular, having no statutory basis, did not invalidate the appointments, which were made under the prevailing laws. --Governor's Authority: The court ruled that while the Governor, as Chancellor, may propose criteria for appointments, such criteria must be incorporated into the statutes or regulations of the university. Since the circular was never formally adopted into the universities’ regulations, it had no legal effect, and the statutory law governing appointments remained valid. As a result: W.P. No. 27179/2023 was allowed, and the 2008 circular was declared void. W.P. Nos. 11917/2023 and 2455/2022 were dismissed, with the appointments upheld as being in accordance with the law. -----Citations/Precedents: Dr. Iqrar Ahmad Khan v. Dr. Muhammad Ashraf and others (2021 SCMR 1509) Dr. Akbar Anjum v. Bahauddin Zakariya University, etc. (2022 LHC 1824) Dr. Munir Khan Khattak v. Chancellor, The University of Agriculture, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 4 others (2017 PLC (C.S.) Note 10)