Summary: Background:In Civil Appeals No. 188 to 193 of 2020 before the Supreme Court of Pakistan (Appellate Jurisdiction), the appellants challenged judgments rendered by the Peshawar High Court. The dispute centered around a notification dated 14.07.2016, which granted an allowance to employees holding M.Phil degrees. Respondents, holding degrees equivalent to M.Phil, sought the same allowance.---Issues:Whether the Peshawar High Court erred in granting relief based on letters from the Higher Education Commission (HEC) regarding degree equivalencies.Whether the notification's language limited the allowance to holders of M.Phil degrees recognized by the HEC.Whether there was discrimination in the notification's application and in comparison to similar allowances in other provinces.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held:The Peshawar High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by relying on HEC letters for relief, as the HEC's mandate is limited to academic matters, not financial benefits.The notification clearly intended to grant the M.Phil allowance only to holders of degrees recognized by the HEC as M.Phil, not to those with equivalent degrees.The absence of discrimination was affirmed, as the notification differentiated between M.Phil degree holders and others, and variations in allowances across provinces were within their constitutional powers.---Citations/Precedents:S.M.C. No.15 of 2010 and C.M.As. Nos.2689, 3244 of 2010 and CMAs. Nos.5383, 3068 of 2011 (2013 SCMR 304) - Regarding provincial powers and decisions.Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan - Limitations on High Courts regarding service matters.Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002 - Mandate and limitations of the HEC.Notification dated 14.07.2016 - Textual analysis of the notification granting the M.Phil allowance.Letters from the Higher Education Commission (HEC) - Evidence of the HEC's role and limitations.Judgments dated 07.02.2018, 20.06.2019, 19.09.2019, 30.10.2019, 24.10.2019, and 21.11.2019 of the Peshawar High Court - Decisions under review.

Summary: The main directive of the court is to instruct the university authorities to nominate a research supervisor for the petitioner to facilitate the submission of their research work. The court expressed concerns about inefficiency and inaction on the part of the university authorities. To address this issue, the court ordered that a copy of this order should be sent to the Chairman of the Higher Education Commission in Pakistan. The Higher Education Commission is tasked with investigating the matter, determining responsibility for the inefficiency or inaction, and taking appropriate action against those responsible. The Chairman of the Higher Education Commission is further directed to complete this investigation within two months from the receipt of a certified copy of the court's order. The court has ruled in favor of the petitioner, directed the university to nominate a research supervisor, and initiated an investigation into the university authorities' conduct.

Summary: Background: The petitioners, medical graduates from a foreign institution, were selected through the Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan for scholarships offered by a foreign government after a natural disaster. Upon their return, they sought registration as medical practitioners in Pakistan without the requirement of passing the National Examination Board (NEB) examination, a prerequisite for foreign graduates under the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) Ordinance. -----Issues: 1- Whether the HEC’s scholarship offer and selection process implied an exemption from the NEB examination for foreign medical graduates. -----2- Whether the PMDC's requirement for the NEB examination applies retroactively to graduates admitted before the Amendment Act of 2012. -----3- Whether principles such as promissory estoppel and locus poenitentiae apply, given the petitioners’ reliance on alleged representations by the HEC and PMDC. -----4- Whether the PMDC Ordinance or the HEC Ordinance should prevail regarding the regulation and registration of medical practitioners. -----Holding / Reasoning / Outcome: The court held that: The PMDC Ordinance, as amended, mandates the NEB examination for foreign graduates, and there is no implied exemption for the petitioners. The Amendment Act applies to the petitioners as they graduated after the amendment. Admission to the foreign institution did not constitute an automatic right to registration. The principles of promissory estoppel and locus poenitentiae do not apply. The Registrar's letter, purportedly exempting students, was issued without lawful authority. The PMDC Ordinance, with its specific mandate to regulate medical practice, prevails over the HEC Ordinance, which does not confer powers to regulate medical qualifications or registration. The court dismissed the petitions, reaffirming the necessity for the NEB examination to protect public welfare and ensuring that only competent practitioners are registered. However, it encouraged the PMDC to support petitioners with preparatory resources and a reduced examination fee. -----Citations / Precedents: Promissory Estoppel & Locus Poenitentiae: Messrs Gadoon Textile Mills and 814 others Vs. WAPDA and others [1997 S.C.M.R. 641] Secretary Economic Affairs Division, Islamabad and others Vs. Anwarul Haq Ahmed and others [2013 S.C.M.R. 1687] Dr. Muhammad Munir-Ul-Haq and others Vs. Dr. Muhammad Latif Chaudhry and others [1992 S.C.M.R. 2135] Islamic Republic of Pakistan Vs. Israrul Haq and 23 others [P.L.D. 1981 S.C. 531] Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. and others Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others [1992 S.C.M.R. 1652] Pakistan through Ministry of Finance, Economic Affairs and others Vs. Fecto Belarus Tractors Limited [P.L.D. 2002 S.C. 208] Locus Poenitentiae: Muhammad Nadeem Arif and others Vs. Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and others [2011 S.C.M.R. 408] Executive District Officer (Edu). Rawalpindi Vs. Mst. Rizwana Kausar and 4 others [2011 S.C.M.R. 1581] Nazir Ahmed Panhwar Vs. Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Sindh and others [2005 S.C.M.R. 1814]

Summary: Background: The petitioners are medical graduates who completed their studies at a medical institution in Cuba under a scholarship program offered by the Republic of Cuba following the 2005 earthquake. The scholarships were facilitated by the Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan, which invited applications for the scholarship through an advertisement. The petitioners were selected for the scholarship and completed their studies in Cuba. After graduation, they were informed by the HEC that they would need to pass the National Examination Board (NEB) examination for registration under the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) Ordinance. The petitioners challenged this requirement, claiming that the HEC's selection process and the scholarship represented a commitment that they would not have to take the NEB examination. -----Issues: 1- Whether the representation made by the HEC regarding the scholarship program and selection of students created a right for the petitioners to be exempt from the NEB examination. -----2- Whether the provisions of the HEC Ordinance, 2002, override the provisions of the PMDC Ordinance in this context. -----3- Whether the petitioners can claim exemption from the NEB examination on the basis of the HEC’s role in their selection for the scholarship. -----4- Whether the principles of promissory estoppel or locus poenitentiae apply to the petitioners' case. -----5- Whether the court should grant relief or withhold it in the interest of public welfare, particularly regarding patient safety and medical standards. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --No Legal Right to Exemption: The court held that the HEC did not have the jurisdiction to grant exemption from the NEB examination, as the recognition and registration of medical practitioners are governed by the PMDC Ordinance. The selection for the scholarship did not create any legal right for exemption from the NEB examination, nor did it exempt the petitioners from the regulatory requirements of the PMDC. --HEC and PMDC Ordinances: The court concluded that the HEC Ordinance and the PMDC Ordinance serve distinct purposes and cannot override each other. The HEC's role was limited to facilitating the scholarship and selection process, while the PMDC Ordinance regulates medical qualifications and registration. Therefore, the HEC Ordinance does not supersede the PMDC Ordinance, and the petitioners are still required to meet the PMDC’s standards, including passing the NEB examination. --Promissory Estoppel and Locus Poenitentiae: The court found that the principles of promissory estoppel and locus poenitentiae were not applicable. The letter issued by the PMDC's Registrar regarding exemptions was deemed unauthorized and had no legal effect. The petitioners’ claim that they were induced by representations to study abroad did not create a legal right for exemption. --Public Welfare and Patient Safety: The court emphasized that the public’s trust in medical professionals is paramount, and it is essential that all medical practitioners meet the necessary standards of competence. The NEB examination is a basic competency test designed to ensure that foreign medical graduates possess the knowledge and skill required for patient care. The court expressed concerns about allowing graduates without such qualifications to practice medicine and highlighted that public safety should not be compromised. --Dismissal of Petitions: The court dismissed the petitions, holding that there was no merit in the petitioners' claims for exemption from the NEB examination. However, it encouraged the PMDC to facilitate the petitioners by arranging refresher courses and offering a reduced fee for the NEB examination. -----Citations/Precedents: Messrs Gadoon Textile Mills and 814 others Vs. WAPDA [1997 S.C.M.R. 641] Secretary Economic Affairs Division, Islamabad and others Vs. Anwarul Haq Ahmed [2013 S.C.M.R. 1687] Dr. Muhammad Munir-Ul-Haq and others Vs. Dr. Muhammad Latif Chaudhry [1992 S.C.M.R. 2135] West Punjab Government Vs. Messers Pindi-Jhelum Valley Transport Ltd. [P.L.D. 1960 S.C. 88]

Summary: (a) Al-Khair University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Act (XXVIII of 1994)-------Preamble---Establishment of university--Recognition of degree by Pakistan---Scope---Degreeof Al-Khair University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir has been recognized by Higher EducationCommission of Pakistan as equivalent to degrees of other universities of Pakistan.(b) Balochistan University Act (III of 1996)-------S.31---Affiliation of campus---Object, purpose and scope---Affiliation of campus withBalochistan University does not mean that it has become part of the University of the citieshaving jurisdiction in the area---Purpose for affiliation is to have a check on the standard ofeducation of that campus. (c) Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (XXXV of 1973)-------S.26---Balochistan Bar Council Rules, R. 3---Balochistan University Act (III of 1996), Ss. 5,27 & 31---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.25 & 199--Constitutional petition---Discremination---Enrolment as advocate---No Objection Certificate from BalochistanUniversity---Impact--Petitioners obtained LLB. degrees from Al-Khair University of AzadJammu and Kashmir campus at Quetta but Balochistan Bar Council declined to enroll them onthe ground that the University was not recognized by Pakistan Bar Council---Plea raised bypetitioners was that Balochistan University had issued `No Objection Certificate' to theUniversity for establishing its campus at Quetta---Validity---By not allowing petitioners to applyto Bar Council, it amounted to discrimination, because all of them were getting their legaleducation from Al-Khair University of Quetta before the resolution passed by Pakistan BarCouncil---Petitioners were under bona- fide impression that the University was duly affiliated byUniversity of Balochistan-It was fault of Al-Khair University on the one hand, by not properlyapplying to Balochistan University for affiliation and on the other hand Balochistan Universitywas at fault by simply issuing 'No Objection Certificate' for establishment of campus---ThoughNo Objection Certificate was not equivalent to affiliation but still it had an impression on the rawminded students that campus at Quetta was working legally and lawfully---For mistaken act orfault of both the Universities, petitioners who had already got admissions or obtained degreestherefrom before the resolution of Pakistan Bar Council, could not be penalized---High Court, inexercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, directed the Bar Council to entertain applications ofpetitioners for enrolment---Petition was allowed accordingly.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199---Maintainability---Scope of constitutional jurisdiction---Petitioner, a PhD scholar, sought directions to the Higher Education Commission (HEC) for adjustment of scholarship funding from March 2023 instead of November 2024, reimbursement of tuition and maintenance expenses incurred due to delay, and inclusion of the period of Fall Session from March 2023 to November 2024 in the Final Award Letter---Held, that the petitioner had been granted a provisional offer of scholarship on 07.07.2022 under the Overseas Scholarship for PhD in Selected Fields Phase-III/Advanced Skills Development Program, with specific terms and conditions---Petitioner proceeded abroad in March 2023 without prior approval or issuance of a Final Scholarship Award, without execution of the mandatory legal bond, and without submission of required documents---The provisional award letter did not create any vested or enforceable right until issuance of the Final Award---As the petitioner had subsequently consented to the final terms of the scholarship through email dated 29.12.2024 and accepted the Final Scholarship Award dated 18.02.2025, he could not thereafter challenge its terms before the High Court---Where a petitioner voluntarily accepts contractual conditions, constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to rewrite or alter the agreed terms---Petition was therefore not maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution. (b) Contractual obligation---Execution of scholarship award---Effect of acceptance of final terms---HEC acted within its authority in fixing the effective date of funding from 01.11.2024, as the petitioner had consented to those terms---Having accepted the final offer and received the benefits thereunder, the petitioner was estopped from challenging the conditions of the Final Award---Provisional scholarship did not confer a legal entitlement to earlier payments, and petitioner’s self-financed period prior to the effective date could not be reimbursed---Petition dismissed. (c) Administrative discretion---Financial constraints---HEC’s action in deferring scholarship funding---HEC had temporarily suspended issuance of Final Scholarship Awards due to financial constraints and direction from the Finance Division not to create further foreign exchange liabilities for fiscal year 2023-2024 without prior concurrence---Such policy-based financial decisions fell within administrative discretion and did not constitute arbitrariness or mala fide exercise of power---No violation of fundamental rights was established. Petition dismissed.

Summary: "A statutory authority / organization or an autonomous body must ensure its actions aligned with the principles of justice and settled law, avoiding the measures that contradict these norms." --- (a) Constitution of Pakistan—Art. 199 Issuance of degree and transcript—Scholarship dispute—Jurisdiction of university—Petitioner, a recipient of Ehsaas Scholarship, was denied issuance of LL.B degree, transcript, and clearance by university authorities on directions of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) over allegations of misrepresentation of financial eligibility—University itself had no independent claim or dues against petitioner—Held, that university is not privy to the scholarship agreement and had no legal authority to withhold academic documents on behalf of HEC—Such act was held to be without legal basis—Court directed the university to issue petitioner’s degree and other documents forthwith. Disposition: Petition disposed of with directions. ---- (b) Contractual Obligations—Deed of Agreement—Scholarship recovery—Scope and limitations—HEC alleged petitioner concealed facts and provided false financial information, justifying scholarship termination and recovery under Deed of Agreement—Petitioner disputed this, stating no concealment occurred and documents were duly scrutinized by respondents at the time of award—Held, that conditions of the scholarship deed do empower HEC to initiate recovery if false information is discovered—However, proper legal recourse must be followed and direct enforcement through university without due process was declared unlawful—Court restrained HEC from recovery unless it first initiates appropriate civil legal proceedings. Cited Case: Higher Education Commission through Project Manager v. Sajid Anwar and others (2012 SCMR 186). Disposition: Respondent No.2 restrained from recovery without civil remedy. ---- (c) Administration of Justice—Misallocation of public funds—Scholarship program oversight—Court noted that 47 students at Islamia University Bahawalpur were granted Ehsaas Scholarships despite failing to meet eligibility criteria—Such misallocation undermines the purpose of public welfare schemes and constitutes a breach of legal and ethical standards—Court directed that copy of the judgment be forwarded to Chairman, Higher Education Commission, to ensure strict scrutiny in future to confine awards only to deserving students. Disposition: Directions issued for systemic reform in scholarship disbursement.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, All Public Universities BPS Teachers Association (APUBTA), raised concerns regarding vacant key positions in various public sector universities across Pakistan. The petition was filed against the Federation of Pakistan and the relevant provincial and federal education authorities, highlighting the non-compliance of these universities with statutory laws, especially regarding the appointment of Vice-Chancellors and other tenured positions. The petition also questioned the functioning of university statutory bodies like Syndicates and Senates, which were not meeting as per their legal requirements. This situation has been creating administrative inefficiencies and contributing to the poor performance of universities. ----Issues: 1) Whether public sector universities are complying with laws regarding the timely appointments of Vice-Chancellors, Rectors, Presidents, and other key tenured positions. ----2) Whether universities are holding meetings of their statutory bodies (Senates, Syndicates, Boards of Governors/Trustees) as required by law. ----3) Whether universities are managing their academic-to-non-academic staff ratios in accordance with HEC guidelines to maintain financial stability. ---4) Whether further employment of non-academic staff should be restricted or stopped to manage universities' financial health. ---5) Whether the continuous violation of laws in managing universities is affecting their academic standing and reputations. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Failure to Comply with Statutory Requirements: The Supreme Court found that numerous public universities were not filling key positions such as Vice-Chancellors, Rectors, and Presidents. Universities had acting appointments or left such positions vacant for extended periods. The Court ordered universities to appoint officials permanently and in accordance with their laws. Failure to comply would lead to action against the responsible officials. Statutory Meetings Not Held: The Court expressed serious concerns over the failure of universities to conduct mandatory meetings of their statutory bodies, which are crucial for governance and academic oversight. The Court highlighted specific universities that had not met the required frequency of meetings, violating their respective legal frameworks. The universities were ordered to provide explanations and take immediate corrective actions. Staff Ratio Management: The Court noted that nearly all public universities had a higher non-academic staff ratio than the 1:1.5 ratio recommended by the HEC, contributing to financial strain. The provinces and the federal government were directed to submit reports on efforts to address this issue and stop further employment of non-academic staff where necessary. Financial Mismanagement: The Court warned that the universities' mismanagement, including failure to adhere to staff ratios and administrative procedures, was leading to financial difficulties. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring compliance with the law to maintain financial discipline. Impact on Academics and Reputation: The Court expressed concern that the failure to comply with legal standards was affecting the quality of education and the reputation of Pakistani universities. Degrees awarded by universities that fail to meet basic statutory requirements could lose their standing, which would harm both students and the country's academic reputation globally. ---Citations/Precedents: No specific precedents were cited in the order; however, the Court heavily relied on statutory provisions governing public universities, such as the requirements for meetings and appointments as stipulated in the respective university laws. ----Conclusion: The Supreme Court emphasized the need for universities to comply with their respective statutory laws regarding the appointment of key officials and the functioning of statutory bodies. The non-compliance was creating administrative inefficiencies and affecting the quality of education. The universities were directed to submit explanations within fourteen days and ensure compliance, failing which appropriate actions would be taken against those responsible.