" />" />
|Forum Home > General Discussion > I Need Your Supports/ Comments (Writ Petition 14801/2011)|
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE
Tariq Umar S/O Muhammad Umar Khan, Cantonment Board Walton 42-Sarwar Road Lahore Cantt.
1. Deputy Registrar Pakistan Engineering Council, Rehman Centre, 32-B Gulberg-III, Lahore.
2. The Registrar Pakistan Engineering Council, Attaturk Avenue (East) G-5/2, P.O Box. No. 1296, Islamabad.
WRIT PETITION: UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN 1973.
That the brief facts forming the back ground of this writ petition are:
1. That the petitioner after completing M.Sc Civil Engineering (UK), B.Tech (Hons), B.Tech (Pass) and D.A.E applied to Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC) for his registration as Engineer, but due to unknown reasons the genuine request of the petitioner was turned down. As such the petitioner filed the writ petition No. 10847/2010 Lahore High Court, Lahore; which was disposed off on 01.12.2010 by His lard ship Mr. Justice Shiekh Ahmad Farooq with the direction to the registrar PEC Islamabad to decide the representation of the petitioner within forth night. However respondent No.2 rejected the application of the petitioner vide non speaking order. The order of this Honourable Court and order pass by registrar PEC are attached as Annex A & B.
2. That first of all the respondent No.2 has given a false statement on 01.12.2010 to the Honourable Court wherein he has stated that the petitioner has not so far submitted an application in the prescribed form for his registration as engineer. While the petitioner has submitted his application to the respondent in prescribed form on 05.11.2010. The receipt issued by the respondents regarding acknowledgement of petitioner application is attached as Annex C.
3. That later on 15.12.2010 the respondents send a letter, wherein they have informed the petitioner that as he neither had an accredited bachelor degree in engineering nor he fulfil the requirement stated at entry No.111 of Schedule-II of the PEC act, hence the registration of the petitioner as engineer can not be approved.
4. That the name of Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE, UK) along with other different Professional Institutions of Engineering Council (EC, UK) were mentioned at S.No. 111 of the schedule-II of PEC. These Institutions were removed by the respondent No.2 from 2nd Schedule by a notification on 22.11.2010. The respondents admitted the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE, UK) in his parawise reply/ comments to the writ petition 10847/2010 and informed the Honourable Court that the petitioner did not provide evidence of membership of Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE, UK). The question arise that as the matter was in the Court, then why the respondent No.2 has made changes in the 2nd schedule of the PEC act, and why not the Honourable Court charged contempt of court on the respondents.
5. The petitioner is a devoted citizen of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, however he has been denied by respondents for the membership of PEC; while the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE, UK), Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ) and Engineers Ireland have granted membership to the petitioner. It is further added that all these countries/ Institutions are the SIGNATORIES WASHINGTON ACCORD, since 1987. The matters was also earlier conveyed by International Engineering Alliance (IEA) and informed the PEC officials that this matter is required to be addressed by PEC as this is some thing related to the future obligation under Washington Accord, however PEC fails to review their decision. The assessment/ membership letter issued by the ICE, UK; IPENZ and Engineers Ireland are attached as Annex D, E, F & G.
6. That earlier the respondent No.2 i.e. Registrar PEC has submitted in his parawise reply/ comments that the PEC has recently become a provisional signatory of W.A under which a person registered with EC, UK as Chartered Engineer may also be considered by PEC as Engineer. However according to the IEA and W.A rules & procedures, the W.A applies to recognized engineering graduates of member countries and it doesn’t apply to the professional titles such as Chartered Engineer, Chartered Professional Engineer or Professional Engineer. Now, either the Registrar PEC who has a post equivalent (nearly) to a federal secretary/ federal minister and represent Pakistan at different national/ international forums, don’t know any thing regarding W.A or has intensively submitted a wrong statement to miss guide the Honourable Court. If the respondent don’t know about the rules/ procedures/ applications of the W.A, so the question arise that either he is eligible for the post of Registrar PEC and if he has submitted a wrong statement to the Court so why not a contempt of Court should not be charged on him.
7. That the 2nd schedule of PEC act mentioned the accredited qualification gained out side of Pakistan. Before amendment the S.No.111, the members of all professional engineering institutions of EC, UK were eligible for membership of PEC, however after amendment, the word Chartered Engineer is present there now. The Chartered Engineer is professional title which is given after completing the following stages.
(a) Academic Base/ Qualification
(b) Continuing Professional Development
(c) Chartered Professional Review.
The respondents/ PEC has been informed by the petitioner that as they compared the Chartered Engineer of EC, UK with the Professional Engineer of PEC, hence the Graduate Member of any Professional Institutions of EC, UK as same as Registered Engineer of PEC, as both has completed the stage (a) i.e. Academic Base/ Qualification. However PEC officials were not ready to accept the full fact. The PEC official were also informed that this is an international procedure adopted by all the signatories of W.A that if a qualification is not accredited by any professional institution, it can be assessed through academic assessment, as the petitioner qualifications have been assessed by the Engineering Council UK through Institution Civil Engineers; Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ) and Engineers Ireland. All these institutions does not informed the petitioner that his qualification is not accredited by them, even the petitioner is not a citizen of those countries nor he is graduate from their universities, and they still happy to recognized him and give him their membership.
9. That now once again let us talk about the 2nd schedule of PEC, where in some of the UK universities and their bachelor degrees which DON’T SATISFIED THE EDUCATION BASE OF EC, UK AND CONCERNED PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE GRADE OF CHARTERED ENGINEER, HAVE BEEN INCLUEDE. While on the other side the petitioner has satisfied the EC, UK, through Institution of Civil Engineers for the grade of Chartered Engineer and still have been denied by the PEC and it totally unjustified. The list of such universities are as under:
S.No. PEC 2nd Sch: Ref: Name of Institution Degree Award Status with EC, UK
1 9 Aberdeen University BEng (Civil) Don’t satisfy the Education Base for Charter Engineer (CEng).
2 11 Birmingham University BEng (Civil) -do-
3 12 Bristol University BEng (Civil) -do-
4 16 Durham University BEng (Civil) -do-
5 17 Edinburgh University
BEng (Civil) -do-
6 20 Liverpool University BEng (Civil) -do-
7 21 London University BEng (Civil) -do-
8 36 Wales University BSc/ BSc (Hons) -do-
10. That in pareawise/ comments to W.P No. 10847/2010, the respondents have submitted that the B.Tech(Hons) degree is not equivalent to B.Sc Engineering and they are not eligible for registration as Engineer. However, the petitioner not only has the B.Tech(Hons) degree, but also acquired a M.Sc Civil Engineering degree from the University of East London (UK), which is not only accredited by EC, UK, but also accredited by the Joint Board of Moderators (JBM, UK), which consist of Institution of Civil Engineers, Institution of Structural Engineers, Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation and the Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers. The petitioner also requested to the respondents that his M.Sc Engineering may be considered equivalent to B.Sc Engineering for registration as Engineer, however due to unlawful behaviour of the respondents, the request of the petitioner was not considered. There are couple of example available in PEC 2nd Schedule, where in the respondents have considered M.Sc Engineering equivalent to B.Sc Engineering and some of them are appended as under:
S.No. Ref: to PEC 2nd Sch: Name of University Degree Award Web Link
1 130 Technical University of GDANSK Poland M.Sc Engineering http://www.wilis.pg.gda.pl/en/
2 134 Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden M.Sc Engineering http://www.chalmers.se/en/education/
While on the other side the petitioner not only has an accredited (UK) M.Sc engineering degree but also has the membership of three signatories of W.A i.e. Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE, UK), Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ) and Engineers Ireland. Inspite the PEC welcome and appreciate the petitioner, they denied his membership. The respondents were also informed by the petitioner about the international standards where in if a undergraduate degree don’t satisfied the academic base of any specific grade, hence the requirement can be achieved by completing an approved Master level degree or an approved training. It can be accepted that B.Tech (Hons) degree is not equivalent to B.Sc Engineering degree, however this is totally unjustified and unlaw full that this degree can not be bring equivalent to B.Sc Engineering by completing an accredited M.Sc Engineering. The example of Engineering Council (UK) and its professional Institutions can be taken as guide line. Suppose a degree (B.E/ B.Sc) don’t satisfied the EC, UK and concerned Institution for the grade of Chartered Engineer (CEng), hence the requirement can be achieved by completing an approved training or M.Sc degree. While if a degree is not accredited by EC, UK/ concerned Institution it can be recognized/ assessed through academic assessment. If any one who don’t have a university degree, his path for membership is engineering examination. There is always a way for every one and there is no deny.
11. That the PEC was established to by the Government of Pakistan to regulate and improve the engineering profession and to set and maintain realistic and international relevant standard as its mission, however as the petitioner has been granted membership by three Signatories of W.A and has been denied by PEC, show that the PEC has fails to achieved his mission and this organization is required to be restructured and such officials are required to be recruited who can able to lead the council as per international standards.
12. That this is the fundamental right of the petitioner under article 4 of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan that the petitioner be treated in accordance with the law and due process be adopted. The petitioner is an eligible person to be registered as engineer with PEC due to holding an accredited (UK) M.Sc Civil Engineering and is a member of ICE (UK), IPENZ (NZ) and Engineers Ireland. By not registering the petitioner as engineer, the respondents are negating the fundamental right and the very mandate of the constitution.
13. That under article 9 of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the petitioner has also been guaranteed to enjoy his life with full pleasure and entertainment. By not registering the name of petitioner as per his qualification and membership of different countries of W.A, the respondents are also depriving of the fundamental rights of the petitioner secured under article ibid.
14. That the petitioner is a highly qualified person from UK and the petitioner even has been acknowledged as member by United Kingdom, New Zealand and Ireland. The petitioner has come back to Pakistan with high aim and with the sense of serving his native country with foreign education. But the petitioner has been undignified by the attitude meted by the respondents and the fundamental rights of the petitioner under article 14 has also been infringed and violated.
15. That the petitioner has also his fundamental right under article 18 of the constitution to have a profession of his choice. The respondents with malafide intention have been hampering in the way of his profession by not registering his name as engineer with the PEC.
16. That the petitioner has been left no other alternative, efficacious and expeditious remedy except invoking extra ordinary and exclusive prerogative of this Honourable Court for the redressal of his grievances.
In view of the facts and submissions made above, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that while accepting the instant writ petition, respondents be directed to admit the petitioner in their record as an Engineer keeping in view his M.Sc degree in Civil engineering from UK and membership of ICE (UK), IPENZ (NZ) and Engineers Ireland in the larger interest of justice, equity and fair play.
Any other relief which the Honourable Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.
MUHAMMAD IQBAL MOHAL
SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
13-FANE ROAD LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SULTAN KASURI
LAHORE HIGH COURT, PAKISTAN
13-FANE ROAD LAHORE
1. As per instruction of my client it is certified that this is the second writ petition being filed on the subject matter before this Honourable Court and no other petition has been filed.
2. That this writ petition has been filed for violation/ non fulfilment of obligation under Article 199 of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and that no alternative remedy has been availed off by the petitioner.
Please put up with writ petition 10847/2010 along with this writ petition.