Summary: (a) Service matters—Special Allowance for higher qualification—HEC equivalence—Scope—Held: Higher Education Commission (HEC) is the competent authority for determining academic equivalence; its Notification dated 23-05-2017 declares MS and M.Phil identical in substance (18 years’ education) with only nomenclature difference—Once academic equivalence is formally acknowledged, the State cannot arbitrarily differentiate between MS and M.Phil for an allowance premised on “M.Phil” qualification—HEC’s academic determination binds for purposes of reasonable classification; contrary executive exclusions are liable to be struck down. (b) Executive instructions vs. constitutional guarantees—Finance Department Circular (26-04-2017)—Validity—Circular predates the HEC clarification and restricts the Special Allowance @ 50% of Ph.D. Allowance to M.Phil holders only—To the extent it excludes MS (18-year) degree holders recognized as equivalent by HEC, the restriction is overbroad and lacks rational nexus; violates equality and non-discrimination guarantees under the AJK Interim Constitution, 1974—Executive financial policy must operate within constitutional bounds and respect authoritative academic equivalence where benefit is pegged to academic qualification. (c) Nature of HEC clarification—Academic vs. employment/finance—Where Government chooses to confer a financial benefit by reference to a degree title/level, authoritative academic equivalence determined by HEC is a relevant and weighty criterion; denial to one group (MS) while granting to an identically placed group (M.Phil) is arbitrary—Parity reinforced by consistent practice in other government departments referenced on record. (d) Precedent distinguished—Muhammad Rizwan-ullah Khan & others v. AJK Govt. (2018 SCR 1161)—Inapplicable—That case concerned M.Sc. (Hons.) (typically 16-year pathway) and not MS/M.Phil (18-year)—No HEC parity existed there comparable to the MS/M.Phil categories (i) & (ii) expressly equated in the 23-05-2017 Notification—High Court’s reliance misplaced. (e) Relief/entitlement—Appellants (MS degree holders) and all similarly placed individuals declared entitled to the Special Allowance @ 50% of Ph.D. Allowance under Government Notification dated 12-07-2016—Entitlement effective from 23-05-2017 (date of HEC clarification)—Departments directed to process and disburse within a reasonable timeframe—No order as to costs. Disposition: Appeal accepted—High Court’s consolidated judgment dated 05-03-2024 set aside—Declaration and directions issued as above.

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: 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:The Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan filed a lawsuit against Dr. Nousheen Iram and her guarantor (defendant no.2) for recovery of scholarship funds. HEC claimed that Dr. Nousheen breached her scholarship agreement by not serving in Pakistan for five years after completing her Ph.D. in March 2013 as stipulated in the contract signed in 2007. The guarantor for Dr. Nousheen, who was her father, had passed away in 2011 before the lawsuit was filed. The trial court ruled that proceedings against the deceased guarantor should abate, leading HEC to challenge this decision in the Islamabad High Court.-----Issues:Whether the liability of the guarantor, as per the terms of the surety bond, extends beyond his death and binds his legal heirs.Whether the surety bond could be interpreted as a continuing guarantee binding the guarantor's heirs.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Islamabad High Court dismissed the HEC?s petition. The Court clarified the distinction between "guarantee" and "bond" under the law, noting that the language used in the instruments did not support the continuation of liability beyond the guarantor's death. The court held that the "surety bond" and the "guarantee" were separate instruments and that the bond, in legal terms, did not extend obligations to the guarantor?s heirs posthumously unless explicitly stated. The court cited the case Meezan Bank Limited vs. Messrs Focus Apparels and others to support the reasoning that heirs could not be held liable without their explicit agreement to the covenant made by their predecessor. Furthermore, the court held that the HEC's interpretation of the surety bond as a continuing guarantee was incorrect, as the transaction was not a series of transactions but a single scholarship, and payments made in installments did not change this characterization.----Citations/Precedents:National Bank of Pakistan v. Muhammad Raies Ahmad (2020 CLD 784) - Discussed in terms of enforcement of a charge against property and not directly applicable to the question of heir?s liability under a guarantee.Mst. Ameer Begum v. Abid Hussain (PLD 2011 Lahore 284) - Cited regarding the admission of a charge on the surety's property.Section 131 of the Contract Act - Discussed in terms of revocation of a continuing guarantee.Meezan Bank Limited vs. Messrs Focus Apparels (Private) Limited and others (2013 CLD 2138) - Cited for principles regarding the binding of legal heirs under a guarantee.Muslim Commercial Bank v. East and Exports Private Limited and others (2007 CLD 1205) - Cited for principles on the strict construction of guarantee instruments.

Summary: (Accreditation of a University) Preston University was established in 2002 under the Preston University Ordinance. The respondent, applied for admission to the Bachelor of Engineering (BEng) program at the University. However, later it was revealed that the University did not have accreditation from the Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC), and its degree would not be recognized by the Higher Education Commission (HEC). The respondent, discontinued his education and filed a lawsuit against the University, seeking damages. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondent, and the decision was upheld by the Peshawar High Court. The appellant then filed a civil petition before the Supreme Court, which granted leave to consider the matter. The Supreme Court examined the relevant laws, including the Preston University Ordinance, the PEC Act, and the HEC Ordinance. It found that the University had not obtained accreditation from the PEC, which was a requirement for offering engineering education. Without accreditation, the degree issued by the University would not be recognized by the HEC or registered with the PEC. The court noted that the University had not disclosed its accreditation status to the students, including the respondent. It was established that the University had applied for accreditation, but the process remained incomplete. Therefore, the degree issued by the unaccredited institution was considered worthless. The court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling in favor of Habibullah Khan. The respondent was entitled to recover the expenses incurred during his enrollment and seek damages for the University's failure to obtain accreditation.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan—Governance of Public Sector Universities—Vacant Tenured Positions—Compliance with Statutory Provisions—Role of Higher Education Commission (HEC) and Federal/Provincial Governments. Public sector universities in Pakistan must ensure compliance with their respective statutory laws governing appointments to key administrative and academic positions, including Vice-Chancellors, Pro Vice-Chancellors, Rectors, Presidents, Registrars, Deans, Treasurers, Heads of Faculties, and Controllers of Examinations. The Supreme Court directed federal and provincial authorities, along with the Higher Education Commission (HEC), to: Fill vacant tenured positions in universities without undue delay. Ensure periodic statutory meetings of Senates, Syndicates, Boards of Governors, and Boards of Trustees in line with the law. Justify non-compliance with statutory provisions and submit written explanations. ----Cited Laws: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Relevant statutory provisions governing public universities ----(b) Appointment of Vice-Chancellors—Legal Compliance—Acting Charge Appointments—Financial and Academic Governance. The practice of appointing Vice-Chancellors and other key administrative positions on acting charge basis in public sector universities was strongly deprecated. The Supreme Court emphasized: Such appointments undermine the autonomy, efficiency, and credibility of academic institutions. Appointments must strictly adhere to the legal procedures and competitive selection processes. Universities must not leave critical positions vacant, as it adversely affects governance, accountability, and academic performance. Officials failing to comply with legal mandates were directed to submit written explanations and appear in person before the Court. (c) Statutory Meetings—Non-Compliance with Legal Mandates—Governance Failures. The Supreme Court noted widespread non-compliance with statutory requirements regarding periodic meetings of governing bodies in public sector universities, including: Senate Meetings Syndicate Meetings Academic Council Meetings Boards of Governors and Boards of Trustees Failure to hold such meetings contributes to administrative inefficiencies, lack of oversight, and financial mismanagement. Universities were directed to provide written justifications and ensure compliance with statutory mandates. (d) Financial Mismanagement—Ratio of Academic to Non-Academic Staff—HEC Guidelines. The Supreme Court observed significant financial strain on universities due to a disproportionate ratio of non-academic staff to academic staff, violating the 1:1.5 ratio guideline set by HEC. Key directives included: Halt further hiring of non-academic staff until compliance is achieved. Conduct audits and financial reviews to address mismanagement. Ensure transparency and accountability in financial matters. The Court emphasized that such mismanagement not only burdens public resources but also diminishes the quality of education and institutional credibility. ----Cited Laws: HEC Guidelines: Financial regulations of public universities (e) Role of Federal and Provincial Authorities—Accountability and Oversight. The Supreme Court underscored the responsibilities of federal and provincial governments, including the Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training, HEC, and respective Higher Education Departments (HED) of provinces. Directives included: Submit compliance reports on appointments and statutory meetings. Explain ongoing violations of statutory provisions. Address systemic failures in governance, appointments, and compliance with legal mandates. Officials were directed to provide written explanations and attend hearings in person. ----Cited Laws: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Relevant statutory laws and regulations ----(f) Institutional Autonomy vs State Oversight—Balancing Governance and Academic Freedom. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle of institutional autonomy for public sector universities while highlighting the state’s responsibility to ensure compliance with legal and governance standards. Key principles emphasized: Autonomy does not mean exemption from legal and regulatory compliance. Public sector universities must uphold academic integrity and transparency. Governance structures must remain functional, accountable, and responsive to statutory obligations. ----Cited Laws: Statutory laws governing public universities (g) National Importance of Higher Education—Accountability of University Officials. The Supreme Court emphasized that public sector universities are funded by taxpayer money, and officials entrusted with leadership positions bear a fiduciary duty to ensure transparency, compliance, and good governance. Failures in compliance directly impact: Academic standards and research output. Institutional reputation and degree credibility. Public trust in the education system. Officials failing to justify their actions may face legal and administrative consequences. ----Cited Laws: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Statutory laws governing public universities ----Disposition: Universities were directed to comply with statutory requirements. Vice-Chancellors and other key officials must provide written explanations. Federal and provincial authorities must ensure compliance and accountability. HEC guidelines must be strictly implemented. The matter was adjourned for further review after compliance reports are submitted.

Summary: Educational Institutions Cases/Recognition/Equivallation of Degrees---The University was a private educational institution established through the Al-Khair University, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Act, 1994. The HEC had permitted the University to admit students at its principal campus in Bhimber, AJ&K, for specific degree programs.However, the University extended its operations without authorization, opening unauthorized campuses and affiliating various institutions. The HEC received complaints about the poor quality of education and other issues. The University's academic operations were suspended by the HEC from 2009 to 2011, and later, the University was allowed to admit students only at the Bhimber campus for specific disciplines.The HEC took a policy decision to recognize the degrees of students enrolled until April 30, 2009, and required students enrolled after that date in unauthorized campuses to appear in a comprehensive examination for recognition. The University and its affected students challenged the HEC's decision in court, but their petitions were dismissed.The court stated that the HEC had not granted permission for affiliating colleges/institutions in Pakistan, and the University had not followed the given directions. The court found that the HEC had shown grace by providing a mechanism for recognizing degrees from unauthorized institutions after testing the students' educational achievements.The court also rejected the University's contention that the HEC had no jurisdiction, as the University had submitted to the HEC's jurisdiction by requesting recognition for its degrees. The court held that it generally refrains from interfering in policy decisions of educational authorities.In the end, the court dismissed the petitions and declined the leave to appeal. The case was related to the recognition of degrees awarded by the University's unauthorized campuses and affiliated institutions.

Summary: The petitioner's counsel argued that since FCC-U operates under provincial government control, the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable. They cited the involvement of Punjab Higher Education Commission employees on the FCC-U Board of Directors and government financing as evidence.The respondents' counsels contested, asserting that FCC-U operates independently and the government has no control over its affairs. They argued that FCC-U is a private entity, and the terms of its employees' service are under the master-and-servant principle, thus beyond the court's jurisdiction.The legal counsels for both the petitioner and the respondents presented arguments citing previous judgments of the court, namely Sheikh Nadeem Ahmad v. G.C. University (2016 MLD 1966) and Aown Abbas Bhatti v. Forman Christian College (PLD 2018 Lahore 435), respectively. The divergence in these judgments prompted the matter to be referred to a Larger Bench. The petitioner's counsel argued that Forman Christian College University (FCC-U) fell within the definition of "person" under Article 199(5) of the Constitution, being controlled by the provincial government and having Punjab Higher Education Commission employees on its Board of Directors. However, the respondents' counsel contended that FCC-U operated independently, receiving no government funding, and was therefore beyond the court's jurisdiction. The learned Law Officer echoed this, citing the case of Abdul Wahab v. HBL (2013 SCMR 1383). Respondent No. 2 emphasized their regulatory role, while respondents No. 3 to 5 highlighted FCC-U's autonomy from government control. After thorough deliberation and referencing precedents, the court concluded that FCC-U, as a private institution, did not meet the criteria of "person" under Article 199(5). The judgment of Aown Abbas Bhatti (PLD 2018 Lahore 435) was upheld, affirming FCC-U's status as a private entity outside the court's jurisdiction. The petitioner failed to demonstrate statutory regulations governing employee terms and conditions, further weakening their case. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, emphasizing FCC-U's independence and lack of government control, in line with the legal precedents cited.