SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
Present: 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed 
Mr. Justice Qazi Faez Isa 
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood 
 
 
 
 
 
 
C.P.No.78-K of 2015 
 
[On appeal against order dated 21.11.2014 
passed by the Sindh Service Tribunal, 
Karachi, in Appeal No.195 of 2014] 
 
 
 
 
 
Maula Bux Shaikh & others 
Petitioner(s) 
 
VERSUS 
 
 
 
Chief Minister Sindh & others 
Respondent(s) 
******** 
 
For Petitioner No.1 
: Mr. Salah-ud-Din Ahmed, ASC 
 
 
 
For Petitioner Nos.2-3 
: Mr. Rasheed A Rizvi, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
For Respondent Nos.1-4 
: Mr. Sabtain Mehmood, Asstt:A.G. Sindh 
 
 
 
For Respondent No.5 
: Mr. Ghulam Haider Shaikh, ASC 
 
 
 
For Respondent Nos.6-7 & 9 
: Nemo 
 
 
 
For Respondent Nos.8 & 12 
: Dr. Muhammad Farough Naseem, ASC 
 
 
 
For Rspdnt Nos.10-11, 13-17 : Mr. M. Aqil Awan, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 24.04.2018 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
GULZAR AHMED, J.—  Maula Bux Shaikh, Petitioner No.1, (the 
Petitioner) had filed a Service Appeal before the Sindh Service 
Tribunal, 
Karachi, 
(the 
Tribunal) 
challenging 
Notification 
No.SOI(W&S)E/12-1/2005 dated 19.03.2014 to be ultra vires the 
Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 (PEC Act).  The circumstances 
under which the Service Appeal was filed by the Petitioner are that he 
was employed as Sub Engineer BS-11 in the year 1985 in the Works 
and Services Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi.  He was 
5-C.P.No.78-K of 2015.doc 
 
- 2 - 
promoted as Assistant Engineer BS-17 in the year 1997 and since then 
has been serving in such post in his said department. The case of the 
Petitioner is that he is a qualified engineer holding degree of Bachelor 
of Engineering. He has unblemished service record and is eligible for 
promotion to the post of Executive Engineer BS-18 but on account of 
the notification, referred to above, his chance for promotion as 
Executive Engineer BS-18 has been gravely diminished for the reason 
that said notification has provided 13% promotion quota to Diploma 
holders and 7% promotion quota to B.Tech (Hons) Degree holders for 
the post of Executive Engineer BS-18.  The grievance of the Petitioner 
is that the post of Executive Engineer BS-18 being that of a purely 
professional engineering work could only be performed by a 
professional engineer holding accredited engineering qualification, as 
provided in the PEC Act.   
 
2. 
We have heard learned ASCs for the parties at length and have 
gone through the record of the case.  The learned ASCs for the parties 
have also filed their written note of arguments, which too have been 
perused by us.   
 
3. 
The notification dated 19.03.2014 is as follows: 
 
         “NOTIFICATION 
 
 
No.SOI(W&S)E.W/12-1/2005: In pursuance of Sub-
Rule 
(2) 
of 
Rule-3 
of 
the 
Sindh 
Civil 
Servants 
(Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1974 and in 
consultation with the Services, General Administration & 
Coordination Department, Government of Sindh, and in 
partial modification of this Department’s Notification No. 
EI(C&W)1-34/81-84(86) dated 14.01.1987, the method, 
qualification and other conditions for appointment in 
respect of the post of Executive Engineer (BPS-18) 
(Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) 
in 
Works 
& 
Services 
Department, Government of Sindh mentioned in column-
2 of the table below:- 
 
5-C.P.No.78-K of 2015.doc 
 
- 3 - 
 
TABLE 
 
Name of the post 
with BS 
METHOD OF APPOINTMENT 
1 
2 
Executive 
Engineer 
(Civil/Mechanical 
& Electrical) (BPS-
18)  
i) 
Eighty 
percent 
by 
promotion 
from 
amongst the Assistant Engineers B.E. in 
Civil, 
Electrical 
or 
Mechanical 
Engineering with atleast five years 
service in BPS-17 on seniority-cum-
fitness 
basis 
with 
their 
respective 
technology. 
 
ii) 
Thirteen percent by promotion from 
amongst the Diploma holder Assistant 
Engineers 
having 
Diploma in 
Civil, 
Electrical or Mechanical Engineering 
with atleast five years service in BPS-17 
on seniority-cum-fitness basis with their 
respective technology and  
 
iii) 
Seven 
percent 
by 
promotion 
from 
amongst the Assistant Engineers having 
B.Tech (Hons) degree in Civil, Electrical 
or Mechanical Engineering with atleast 
five 
years 
service 
in 
BPS-17 
on 
seniority-cum-fitness basis with their 
respective technology.   
 
 
       QAZI SHAHID PERVEZ 
SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF SINDH” 
 
4. 
In order to regulate the engineering profession, the Parliament 
has passed PEC Act on 10.01.1976.  Section 2(ii) of the PEC Act 
defines accredited engineering qualification, which is as follows: 
 
 
“accredited engineering qualification” means any of 
the qualification included in the First Schedule or the 
Second Schedule” 
 
 
5. 
It is common ground that neither Diploma nor B.Tech (Hons) 
Degree are accredited engineering qualification for the reason that 
there is no reference to the Diploma and B.Tech (Hons) Degree in the 
accredited engineering qualification provided in the first and second 
schedule of the PEC Act.  Thus, accredited engineering qualification is 
ascribed to those who hold Bachelor Degree in Engineering from 
5-C.P.No.78-K of 2015.doc 
 
- 4 - 
accredited 
Engineering 
Universities/Institutions 
in 
Pakistan 
and 
abroad.   
 
6. 
Professional Engineer is defined in Section 2(xxiii), which is as 
follows: 
 
“professional engineer” means a person who holds an 
accredited engineering qualification and after obtaining a 
professional experience of five years, whether working 
privately or in the employment of an engineering public 
organization, has passed the prescribed engineering 
practice examination and is registered as such by the 
Council. 
 
7. 
Professional Engineering Work is defined in Section 2(xxv) as 
follows: 
 
“professional engineering work” means the giving of 
professional 
advice 
and 
opinions, 
the 
making 
of 
measurements and layouts, the preparation of reports, 
computations, designs, drawings, plans and specifications 
and the construction, inspection and supervision of 
engineering works, in respect of—  
 
(a) railways, aerodromes, bridges, tunnels and metalled 
roads;  
 
(b) dams, canals, harbours, light houses;  
 
(c) 
works 
of an 
electrical, 
mechanical, 
hydraulic, 
communication, 
aeronautical 
power 
engineering, 
geological or mining character;  
 
(d) waterworks, 
sewers, 
filtration, purification 
and 
incinerator works;  
 
(e) residential and non-residential buildings, including 
foundations framework and electrical and mechanical 
systems thereof;  
 
(f) structures accessory to engineering works and 
intended to house them;  
 
(g) imparting or promotion of engineering education, 
training 
and 
planning, 
designing, 
development 
construction, commissioning, operation, maintenance and 
management of engineering works in respect of computer 
engineering, 
environmental 
engineering, 
chemical 
engineering, 
structural 
engineering, 
industrial 
engineering, production engineering, marine engineering 
and naval architecture, petroleum and gas engineering, 
metallurgical 
engineering, 
agricultural 
engineering, 
telecommunication 
engineering, 
avionics 
and 
space 
engineering, transportation engineering, air-conditioning 
ventilation, cold storage works, system engineering, 
electronics, 
radio 
and 
television 
engineering, 
civil 
5-C.P.No.78-K of 2015.doc 
 
- 5 - 
engineering, 
electrical 
engineering, 
mechanical 
engineering and biomedical engineering etc;  
 
(h) organizing, managing and conducting the teaching 
and 
training 
in 
engineering 
universities, 
colleges, 
institutions, 
Government 
colleges 
of 
technology, 
polytechnic institutions and technical training institutions;  
 
(i) preparing standard bidding or contract documents, 
construction 
cost 
data, 
conciliation 
and 
arbitration 
procedures; guidelines for bid evaluation, prequalification 
and price adjustments for construction and consultancy 
contracts; and  
 
(j) any other work which the Council may, by notification 
in the official Gazette, declare to be an engineering work 
for the purposes of this Act;” 
 
8. 
Registered Engineer is defined in Section 2(xxvii) as follows: 
 
“registered engineer” means a person who holds an 
accredited engineering qualification, whether working 
privately or in the employment of an engineering public 
organization and is registered as such by the Council.  
Registered 
Engineer 
shall 
perform 
all 
professional 
engineering works except independently signing design. 
 
 
9. 
Section 10(1) of the PEC Act provides:  
“ The engineering qualifications granted by engineering 
institutions in Pakistan which are included in the First 
Schedule 
shall 
be 
the 
accredited 
engineering 
qualifications for the purposes of this Act.”  
 
10. 
While section 11(1) provides:  
 
“The engineering qualifications granted by engineering 
institutions outside Pakistan which are included in the 
Second 
Schedule 
shall 
be 
accredited 
engineering 
qualifications for the purposes of this Act.”  
 
 
11. 
Section 27 of the PEC Act provides for penalties and procedure, 
which is as follows: 
“27. Penalties and procedure.— (1) After such date as 
the Federal Government may, after consultation with the 
Council, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint in 
this 
behalf, 
whoever 
undertakes 
any 
professional 
engineering work shall, if his name is not for the time 
being borne on the Register, be punishable with 
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six 
months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand 
rupees, or with both, and, in the case of a continuing 
offence, with a further fine which may extend to two 
hundred rupees for every day after the first during which 
the offence continues.  
 
5-C.P.No.78-K of 2015.doc 
 
- 6 - 
(2) After the date appointed as aforesaid, whoever 
employs for any professional engineering work any 
person whose name is not for the time being borne on the 
Register shall be punishable, on first conviction, with 
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six 
months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand 
rupees, or with both, and on a second or subsequent 
conviction, with imprisonment for a term which may 
extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten 
thousand rupees, or with both. 
 
(3) 
Whoever willfully procures or attempts to procure 
himself or itself to be registered under this Act as a 
registered engineer, professional engineer, consulting 
engineer, constructor or operator by making or producing 
or causing to be made or produced any false or fraudulent 
representation or declaration, either orally or in writing, 
and any person who assists him therein shall be 
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may 
extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to 
five hundred rupees, or with both.  
 
(4) Whoever falsely pretends to be registered under this 
Act, or not being registered under this Act, uses with his 
name of title any words or letters representing that he is 
so registered, irrespective of whether any person is 
actually deceived by such pretence or representation or 
not, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term 
which may extend to three months, or with fine which 
may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.  
 
(5) No person undertaking any professional engineering 
work shall, unless he is registered under this Act, be 
entitled to recover before any court or other authority any 
sum of money for services rendered in such work.  
 
(5A) No person shall, unless registered as a registered 
engineer or professional engineer, hold any post in an 
engineering organization where he has to perform 
professional engineering work.  
 
(6) No court shall take cognizance of any offence 
punishable under this Act save on complaint made by, or 
under the authority of, the Council.  
 
(7) No court inferior to that of a Magistrate of the first 
class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.” 
 
12. 
The main gist of the arguments of the learned ASC appearing for 
the petitioners is that the work of Executive Engineer BS-18 is strictly 
that of a Professional Engineer and it can only be performed by a 
Professional Engineer, who has engineering degree from an Accredited 
Engineering Institution of Pakistan or abroad as included in the first 
and second schedule of the PEC Act, Diploma holders and B.Tech 
5-C.P.No.78-K of 2015.doc 
 
- 7 - 
(Hons) Degree holders are not professional engineers and cannot 
perform work of a Professional Engineer and that law specifically 
provides penalties to those who perform professional engineering work 
without possessing accredited engineering qualification and registered 
as Professional Engineer by the Pakistan Engineering Council (the 
Council).   
 
13. 
On the other hand, learned ASC appearing for the respondents 
have contended that this very issue has come up before this Court 
number of times and this Court has dealt with it time and again and 
held that in the matter of employment and promotion etc, the 
Government Institutions are legally entitled to take decisions as a 
matter of policy to grant promotion to employees in Engineering Public 
Organization who are Diploma holders in engineering and B.Tech 
(Hons) Degree holders. 
 
14. 
We have noted that the Tribunal in the impugned judgment has 
referred to number of judgments of this Court and the point in issue in 
those judgments substantially also deals with the present controversy 
before us. Thus before dilating upon the matter, it is essential that we 
examine the judgments, which this Court has already delivered and 
are also referred in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. The first 
case in line is a judgment of three members bench of this Court in the 
cases of PAKISTAN DIPLOMA ENGINEERS FEDERATION (REGISTERED) 
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN V/s FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH 
SECRETARY MINISTRY OF WATER & POWER, GOVERNMENT OF 
PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD & 9 OTHERS (1994 SCMR 1807). In this case 
the question involved was whether the Diploma Engineers employed in 
Pakistan Railways can be debarred from promotion to Grade-18 on the 
5-C.P.No.78-K of 2015.doc 
 
- 8 - 
ground that they are not registered as “professional engineers and 
consulting engineers” with Pakistan Engineering Council even though 
they were otherwise by reasons of their seniority etc eligible for 
promotion to Grade-18. While referring to the case of MUHAMMAD 
AZIM JAMALI AND 11 OTHERS V/S GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, 
THROUGH SECRETARY/ CHAIRMAN, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, AND 33 
OTHERS (PLJ 1992 Karachi 1) = (1992 PLC(CS) 637), where split 
decision was given by two Hon’ble Judges of Sindh High Court and 
ultimately it was referred to a Referee Judge for his opinion. This 
Court in dealing with the case before it relied upon the conclusion 
reached by the Referee Judge and quoted the same in the judgment 
as follows : 
 
“16. 
The conclusion of the learned Chief Justice 
was expressed as follows: 
 
“A careful reading of subsections (1) and (2) 
of section 27 of the Act will show that the 
penalties prescribed in the section are 
attracted only against those persons who are 
not registered under the Act but undertake 
any professional engineering work as defined 
in the Act. Similarly, the person who 
employs a person who is not registered 
under the Act, on a professional engineering 
work, is equally liable for punishment under 
the Act. The above provisions are wide 
enough to include the cases of those persons 
who may be employed in any private or 
Governmental organization and are called 
upon 
to 
undertake 
any 
professional 
engineering work. The provisions of the Act, 
regarding 
registration 
of 
professional 
engineer and consulting engineer, therefore, 
in my view, would not be applicable to the 
persons 
serving 
as 
engineer 
with 
the 
Railways, as in course, of their such 
employment they neither act as ‘professional 
engineer’ 
nor 
as 
‘consulting 
engineer’.  
However, if such persons undertake any 
professional engineering work as defined 
under the Act, then the provisions regarding 
registration under the Act will be attracted 
and 
they 
could 
also 
be 
punished 
in 
accordance with the provision of section 27 
of the Act for violating the provision of the 
Act.”  
5-C.P.No.78-K of 2015.doc 
 
- 9 - 
 
  
15. 
On the basis of such conclusion of the Referee Judge, this Court 
proceeded to make its own observation, which is as follows: 
 
17. 
The above judgment of the High Court was not 
challenged either by the qualified engineers who held 
degrees from recognized Institutions of Pakistan nor by 
the diploma-holders but only by the Pakistan Engineering 
Council (which was one of the respondents in the 
Constitution Petition filed in the High Court).  According to 
the Pakistan Engineering Council, the provisions of the 
Pakistan Engineering Council Act had not been correctly 
interpreted because the judgment of the majority in the 
High Court, it appeared to the Council had laid down that 
the Act applied to engineers engaged in professional 
engineering works in the private sector whereas the 
application of provisions of the Act according to them, 
could not be restricted only to the private practitioners 
alone. 
 
18. 
We on the other hand after hearing Mr. Abid 
Hassan Minto learned Advocate for the appellant at 
considerable length consider that this is not a correct 
interpretation of the judgment of the High Court.  The 
High Court has clearly stated that the provisions of the 
Act were wide enough to include cases of those persons 
engaged in professional engineering works whether 
employed in any private or Governmental organization, if 
they are called upon to undertake any professional 
engineering work, as defined under the Act. In fact in the 
connected case C.A.No.31 of 1992 a Committee of 
Secretaries constituted by the Punjab Government 
correctly summed up the true position obtaining in the 
Act as follows:-- 
 
“The Committee was of the view that the 
Government 
could 
appoint 
a 
non-graduate 
engineer to a post in any grade but if the post 
involved performance of professional engineering 
work such appointment would attract penalties 
prescribed in the Act. 
 
The finding of the Referee Judge in this case is to 
the same effect and in our opinion this finding is 
quite correct.” 
 
 
16. 
The next case in line is a judgment of five member bench of this 
Court in the case of FIDA HUSSAIN V/S THE SECRETARY, KASHMIR 
AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS DIVISION, ISLAMABAD & ANOTHER 
(PLD 1995 Supreme Court 701).  In this case facts were that petitioner 
was appointed as Overseer/Sub-Engineer in northern area PWD in 
5-C.P.No.78-K of 2015.doc 
 
- 10 - 
1971. The Federal Government, in order to encourage the diploma 
holders to improve their academic qualification resolved to prescribe 
courses namely B.Tech (Pass) and B.Tech (Hons). The later was 
treated as equivalent to B.Sc. (Engineering) and Bachelor of 
Engineering for the purpose of promotion. Petitioner having passed 
B.Tech (Pass) and B Tech (Hons) was denied promotion in BPS-17 for 
the reasons that B.Tech (Hons) was not recognized by Pakistan 
Engineering Council as equivalent to B.Sc. (Engineering) Degree. 
Petitioner filed Service Appeal, which was dismissed. The Appeal filed 
by the petitioner before this Court was also dismissed. The petitioner 
then applied for review, which was allowed and the judgment 
dismissing the Civil Appeal was recalled and his appeal was allowed 
with directions to consider the petitioner’s case of promotion to BS-17. 
The Court while allowing relief to the petitioner observed as follows: 
 
 “9. 
In this regard, we may point out that it is the 
domain of the Government concerned to decide whether a 
particular academic qualification of a civil servant/ 
employee is sufficient for promotion from one Grade to 
another higher Grade and whereas it is in the domain of 
the Pakistan Engineering Council to decide, as to whether 
a particular academic qualification can be equated with 
another academic qualification, but it has no power to say 
that the civil servants/employees holding particular 
academic qualification cannot be promoted from a 
particular Grade to a higher Grade.  The main object of 
the Act as pointed out by one of us (Ajmal Mian, J.) and 
Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, C.J. (as he then was) in the above 
High Court judgment is to regulate the working of 
professional engineers and consulting engineers and not 
to regulate the qualification or the working of the 
engineers in the Government or semi-Government 
departments.  The definitions of the terms “professional 
engineer” and “professional engineering work” given in 
clauses (j) and (k) of section 2 o the Act are to be read 
together and, therefore, as a corollary to the same, it 
must follow that the term “professional engineering work” 
as defined in clause (k) of section 2 of the Act is to be 
performed by a professional engineer as defined in clause 
(j) thereof, which is evident from section 8 of the Act, 
which defines the functions of the Pakistan Engineering 
Council as under:- 
 
8. 
Functions of the Council.--- The following 
shall be the functions of the Council, namely:-- 
5-C.P.No.78-K of 2015.doc 
 
- 11 - 
 
(a) 
maintenance of a Register of person qualified 
to practice as professional engineers and 
consulting engineers; 
 
(b) 
recognition of engineering qualifications for 
the purpose of registration of professional 
engineers and consulting engineers; 
 
(c) 
removal of names from the Register and 
restoration to the Register of names which 
have been removed; 
 
(d) 
laying down of standards of conduct for the 
members; 
 
(e) 
safeguarding the interest of the members; 
 
(f) 
promotion of reforms in the engineering 
profession; 
(g) 
management of the funds and properties of 
the Council; 
 
(h) 
Promotion of engineering education and 
review of courses of studies in consultation 
with the Universities; 
 
(i) 
levy and collection of fees from applicants for 
registration 
or 
temporary 
licences 
and 
members; 
 
(j) 
exercise of such disciplinary powers over the 
members and servants of the Council as may 
be prescribed; 
 
(k) 
formation of such committees s may be 
prescribed; and 
 
(l) 
performance of all other functions connected 
with, or ancillary or incidental to, the 
aforesaid functions.” 
 
A perusal of the above quoted section shows that the 
Pakistan Engineering Council is vested with the functions 
to 
regulate 
the 
persons 
qualified 
to 
practice 
as 
professional engineers and consulting engineers and not 
persons who are employed in the Government or semi-
Government organisations.  If the Government employs a 
professional engineer as defined in the Act for performing 
professional engineering work as envisaged by the Act in 
above clause (k) of section 2, the provisions of the Act 
would be attracted and not otherwise. 
 
10. 
Reverting to the merits of the present case, as 
pointed out hereinabove, that the petitioner pursuant to 
the above decision of the Government of Pakistan dated 
26.10.1973 passed his B.Tech (Pass) in 1977 and B.Tech 
(Honours) in March, 1981, from the NED University 
Karachi, 
and, 
therefore, 
acted 
upon 
the 
above 
representation of the Government.  In this view of the 
matter, it is not just and fair not to consider the petitioner 
5-C.P.No.78-K of 2015.doc 
 
- 12 - 
for promotion to BPS-17 keeping in view the admitted 
fact that a number of other civil servants/employees in 
the same department in the same position have been 
promoted by the departments/organisations concerned.  
In this behalf, it may be pertinent to refer to the case of 
Mukhtar Ahmad and 37 others v. Government of West 
Pakistan through the Secretary, Food and Agriculture, 
Civil Secretariat, Lahore and another (PLD 1971 SC 846).  
The fact of the above case were that the persons 
possessing the qualifications mentioned in Rule 7 of the 
West Pakistan Agricultural Engineering Service (Class II) 
Rules, 1963 were not available.  The Government 
launched a scheme for training of Assistant Agricultural 
Engineers, whereunder 46 Graduates in B.Sc. Agriculture 
were to be selected for appointment as Assistant 
Agricultural Engineers after their successful completion of 
two years’ diploma course at an Agricultural University.  
The above scheme was discussed by the government with 
the Public Service Commission.  The candidates selected 
by the Public Service Commission, who were about to 
complete their training of two years, were informed by 
the government that they would have to appear again 
before the Public Service Commission to be selected for 
appointment to the posts of Assistant Agricultural 
Engineers (Class-II).  The candidates asserted that after 
the completion of their training they were entitled to be 
appointed as Assistant Agricultural Engineers (Class-II) in 
terms of the offer made to them and they could not be 
required to appear again before the Public Service 
Commission for such appointment.  On the other hand, 
the Government contended that the candidates did not 
possess the qualification prescribed by Rule 7 of the West 
Pakistan Agricultural Engineering Service (Class II) Rules, 
1963, for appointment to such posts.  The matter came 
up for hearing before this Court in the form of an appeal 
with the leave of this Court filed by the candidates against 
the judgment of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High 
Court of West Pakistan.  The same was allowed and inter 
alia the following was concluded:-- 
 
“The offer of the Government and its 
acceptance by the appellants constituted a 
valid agreement and they Governor’s order 
dated the 1st July, 1965 provided the 
authority for such an agreement.  This 
agreement is capable of being enforced in 
law.  The Government was both competent 
and obliged to implement that agreement.  
When the Governor’s order, dated the 1st 
July, 1965, provided a special authority for 
recruitment to the 46 posts of Assistant 
Agricultural 
Engineers, 
rule 
7 
of 
the 
Recruitment Rules was not applicable in this 
case.” 
 
11. 
The above case supports the petitioner’s stand.  
Another aspect which escaped notice of this Court in the 
judgment under review is that some of the other civil 
servants/employees placed in the same position as the 
petitioner was had been considered for promotion to BPS-
17 and in fact were promoted, whereas the petitioner was 
5-C.P.No.78-K of 2015.doc 
 
- 13 - 
denied the above benefit which amounted to violation of 
inter alia Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973.  In this regard, reference may 
be made to the case of I.A. Sherwani and others v. 
Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance 
Division, Islamabad and others (1991 SCMR 1041). 
 
12. 
The judgment of this Court in the case of 
Muhammad Siddique Nasim (supra) relied upon by the 
Tribunal is distinguishable for more than one reason, 
firstly, in the above case the notification of the 
Government of Punjab dated 8.2.1961 equivalising B.Tech 
(Honours) with B.Sc Engineering degree was withdrawn 
on 15.03.1985, whereas the petitioner received degree of 
B.Tech (Honours) in June, 1985, i.e. after the withdrawn 
of the notification whereas in the present case, admittedly 
the petitioner passed his B.Tech (Honours) in March, 
1981, before the Pakistan Engineering Council through its 
Registrar’s above letter dated 24.4.1984 stated that there 
was typographical error in the above-quoted portion of its 
Registrar’s letter dated 30.04.1981.  Secondly, in the 
judgment in the case of Pakistan Diploma Engineers 
Federation (Registered) through its Chairman (supra), 
this Court affirmed the majority view of the High Court of 
Sindh in the case of Muhammad Azim Jamali (supra), in 
which it has been held that the provisions of the Act are 
applicable only to professional engineers and consulting 
engineers who are in practice and not to the persons 
working in the Government departments, autonomous 
bodies, local authorities and private firms or companies.   
 
13. 
We may again observe that it is exclusively within 
the domain of the Government to decide whether a 
particular qualification will be considered sufficient for 
promotion from a particular Grade to a higher Grade and 
it is also within the domain of the Government to change 
the above policy from time to time as nobody can claim 
any vested right in the policy.  However, it cannot 
abdicate its power to decide the above question in favour 
of a corporate body which is not in its control nor it can 
act in a manner which may be violative of Article 25 of 
the Constitution on account of being discriminatory.  It is 
still open to the Government for future to provide that 
academic qualification of B.Tech (Honours) will not be 
considered sufficient for promotion from BPS-16 to BPS-
17 if the same does not violate the above principle.” 
 
17. 
Next case is a judgment of two members bench of this Court in 
the case of MUHAMMAD YOUNUS AARAIN V/S PROVINCE OF SINDH 
THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, SINDH, KARACHI & 10 OTHERS (2007 
SCMR 134).  The case before the Court was of promotion to BS-20 by 
a Diploma holder employee.  The Court dealt with the subject and 
observed as follows: 
 
5-C.P.No.78-K of 2015.doc 
 
- 14 - 
“7. 
The basic qualification for a professional engineer 
under the law is B.Sc. degree in engineering from a 
recognized 
institution 
in 
Pakistan 
and 
diploma 
in 
engineering is not a recognized qualification for a 
professional engineer in terms of PEC Act, 1976.  The 
service rules governing the service of the petitioner 
(SCUG Service Rules, 1982) and the promotion policy of 
the Government of Sindh, would neither override the 
provisions of the above Act nor relax the requirement of 
basic 
qualification 
of 
professional 
engineer 
for 
a 
promotion to BPS-20 in the engineering branch of 
Government of Sindh. The relevant provision of SCUG 
Service Rules, 1982, is reproduced hereunder:-- 
 
“V-Engineering Branch. 
1. 
Grade 20 
By selection on merit from 
among the members of the 
service in Grade-19 of the 
Engineering Branch with at least 
17 years experience as such in 
Grade-17 and above.” 
 
8. 
The above rule envisages clearly that a person can 
be considered for promotion to BPS-20 in the Engineering 
Branch of Government of Sindh, subject to fulfilment of 
the condition of basic qualification of a professional 
engineer prescribed under Pakistan Engineering Council 
Act, 1976 and a diploma holder being not a professional 
engineer in terms of PEC Act, 1976 cannot hold a post 
carrying 
responsibilities 
of 
a 
qualified 
professional 
engineer.  The eligibility of a person for promotion from 
BPS-19 to BPS-20 in the Engineering Department of 
Government of Sindh is subject to the fulfilment of the 
requirement 
of 
basic 
qualification 
with 
requisite 
experience as provided in SCUG Service Rules, 1982 in 
the relevant field therefore, neither any concession could 
be given to the petitioner in the matter of his eligibility to 
hold the post in BPS-20 nor the requirement of basic 
qualification could be relaxed by the Court or by Selection 
Board.  The careful examination of rules on the basis of 
which petitioner asserted the claim of promotion to BPS-
20 against the post carrying responsibilities of a 
professional engineer, would show that his claim was 
without any substance and that a diploma holder on the 
basis of his experience alone, would stand at par to a 
person registered as professional engineer with Pakistan 
Engineering Council.” 
 
 
18. 
The other case is a judgment of three members bench of this 
Court in the case of NAZIR-UL-HASAN & 2 OTHERS V/S SYED ANWAR 
IQBAL & OTHERS (2014 SCMR 1827).  In this case, respondent No.1 
was working as an Assistant Director BS-17. The petitioners were 
senior to him and were promoted to BS-18 despite the fact that 
petitioners were holding qualification of Diploma whereas respondent 
5-C.P.No.78-K of 2015.doc 
 
- 15 - 
No.1 was Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical). The respondent No.1 
challenged the promotions of petitioners in the High Court. The High 
Court set aside all promotions of petitioners on the ground that they 
did not hold valid engineering degree. This Court in the reported 
judgment has dealt with the matter and observed as follows:-  
 
 
“6. 
Admittedly the petitioners were Assistant Directors 
in the respondent Authority with at least 5 years service 
in the relevant field and hence in our opinion they fulfill 
the requirement. It would be seen that when the 
petitioners were considered for promotion in 2012 the 
rules in force were the Pakistan Standards Institution 
Recruitment Rules for class one posts wherein per rule 5 
the post of deputy Directors to be filled in by promotion 
could be done from amongst Assistant Directors category 
one with at least 5 years service in the Institution.  
Nowhere in the said rules was it provided that they would 
be professional engineers or for that matter even diploma 
holders. If fact such condition is prescribed in rule 6 which 
provides for direct appointments whereby per the 
schedule to the same an Assistant Director must hold a 
Master’s Degree in Science or Bachelors Degree in 
Engineering in the specified field from a recognized 
university with at least 3 years experience in that field 
etc.  Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed by 
promotion and hence in our opinion no such condition can 
be placed upon them as in the case of a direct 
appointees.  Insofar as the case of Muhammad Younus 
Aarain (supra) is concerned, the same is distinguishable 
on facts as therein it was found that under Sindh Council 
Unified Grades Services Rules the basic qualification for 
promotion to BS-20 was that the candidates should have 
B.Sc. Degree in Engineering.  As observed above  this is 
not the case in the present matter.  It would further be 
seen that now per section 26 of the Pakistan Standards 
and Quality Control Authority Act, 1996 rules have been 
framed which have been notified in the official gazette on 
15th May, 2013.  Under Rule 5 promotion to the post in 
BS-1 to 19 shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-
fitness etc. and he or she should also fulfil the conditions 
contained in schedule to the rules according to which for 
promotion to the post of Deputy Director Technical the 
eligible person would be an Assistant Director Technical 
and he should have 5 years experience in BS-17 in 
technical matters. Nowhere has it been prescribed that he 
or she should be a qualified engineer. 
 
7. 
In the circumstances, we find that the impugned 
order has unnecessarily been influenced by the comments 
of the Pakistan Engineering Council that no post carrying 
any Engineering responsibility could be entrusted to non-
engineering graduates.  In our opinion, it is for the 
department/institution itself to determine as to whether 
the, persons in its service are fit to hold a particular 
position.  In the present case it has been done by the 
5-C.P.No.78-K of 2015.doc 
 
- 16 - 
authority and rules have been framed thereunder which 
have 
been 
followed 
by 
the 
promotes/petitioners.  
Consequently the impugned order is set aside and the 
promotion of the petitioners is upheld.” 
 
 
19. 
On examination of above case law, we note that nowhere in the 
judgments, the government power to prescribe for qualification and 
other conditions of service for promotion to a post has been assailed 
nor the judgments have put any sort of embargo on the government in 
prescribing the qualification and other conditions of service for a post 
for the purpose of promotion. Having said this, the judgments as 
discussed above, have rather focused on the government power in this 
regard to be unfettered to the extent that it is not in derogation of any 
law or provisions of the Constitution.   
 
20. 
Further, the main principle that is deductible from the above 
judgments of this Court is that it is the domain of the Government to 
decide whether a particular academic qualification of a civil servant/ 
employee is sufficient for promotion from one grade to another higher 
grade and whereas it is in the domain of the Pakistan Engineering 
Council to decide whether a particular academic qualification can be 
equated with another academic qualification but it has no power to say 
that 
the 
civil 
servants/employees 
holding 
particular 
academic 
qualification cannot be promoted from a particular grade to a higher 
grade. Thus on the basis of above pronouncements of this Court, it is 
clear that the notification dated 19.03.2014 cannot be validly or 
justifiably challenged on the ground that it impinges or infringes upon 
any of the provisions of PEC Act, 1976 and thus would be ultravires. 
No such finding can justifiably be recorded in that as it has been laid 
down quite empathetically that the government exercises its own 
power under the domain of law with regard to promotion of civil 
5-C.P.No.78-K of 2015.doc 
 
- 17 - 
servants/employees under Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 and Rules 
made thereunder while PEC Act does not overreach or put an embargo 
upon the government in the matter of prescribing of qualification and 
other conditions of service of civil servants/employees for their 
promotion to higher grade. Yet again, we note that although the vires 
of notification dated 19.03.2014 has been challenged but we observe 
that this very notification has been issued under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 
of Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 
1974, which rules have been made under section 26 of Sindh Civil 
Servants Act, 1973. Neither rule 3(2) of said rules nor section 26 of 
the Act, 1973 have been challenged nor their vires called in question 
before us. Thus from this also it is quite apparent that the petitioner 
does not challenge the government power for prescribing qualification 
and conditions of service of civil servants/employees for their 
promotion to higher grade. In any case, we note that the provisions of 
PEC Act nor the rules and regulations made under it will operate as bar 
on government to prescribe for qualification and other conditions of 
service of civil servants/employees for promotion to higher grade.  
 
21. 
The PEC Act as its preamble itself shows so also reading of the 
whole Act shows that it essentially deals with regulations of 
engineering profession in it, inter alia, it prescribes for qualification of 
professional engineers, maintenance of register of professional 
engineers and accrediting of engineering universities etc and not as a 
regulator of employment be that be of government service or in the 
private service. The reasons for it could be found that all sort of 
engineering work could not be and may not be a professional 
engineering work for performance of which professional engineers are 
required. For example, technician, mechanic, draftsman, foreman, 
5-C.P.No.78-K of 2015.doc 
 
- 18 - 
supervisor and overseer etc at best could be a skilled workman who 
may work independently or under the supervision of professional 
engineer and for such technician, mechanic, draftsman, foreman, 
supervisor and overseer the employer may not require holding of 
professional engineering degree. However, if the person is required to 
perform any of professional engineering work as defined under the PEC 
Act, the provisions of this Act will come into operation for ensuring as 
the work of professional engineer can and only be performed by 
professional engineer as recognized by PEC Act. The professional 
engineering work has been clearly defined under section 2(xxv) of the 
PEC Act which has already been reproduced above and lays down in 
sufficient details the works which are noted to be as professional 
engineering works and such works as mandatorily required by the PEC 
Act to be performed by a professional engineer possessing accredited 
engineering qualification from accredited engineering institutions in 
Pakistan and abroad with experience and passing of test of the Council 
and no other person is allowed to perform professional engineering 
works be that be a diploma holder or B.Tech. degree holder. This 
aspect of the matter has been substantially addressed by the PEC Act 
itself when making provision of section 27(5A) that “no person shall 
unless registered as a registered engineer or professional engineer, 
hold any post in an engineering organization where he has to perform 
professional engineering work.” Thus professional engineering work 
can only be performed by a person who is registered as registered 
engineer or professional engineer and both registered engineer and 
professional engineer in terms of the PEC Act are by law required to 
possess accredited engineering qualification as prescribed by the PEC 
Act from accredited engineering institution.  
5-C.P.No.78-K of 2015.doc 
 
- 19 - 
 
22. 
We may further observe that section 27 of the PEC Act provides 
for penalty for a person who undertakes any professional engineering 
work if his name is not borne on the Register but it also makes the 
employer who employs for any professional engineering work any 
person whose name is not, for the time being, borne on the Register to 
perform professional engineering work, shall also be liable for penalty 
as prescribed in the PEC Act itself. Thus both civil servant/employee 
and their employer would be liable to penalty as provided under 
section 27 if they undertake or allow a person to undertake 
professional engineering work whose name is not borne on register 
under PEC Act.  
 
23. 
The net result of above discussion is that this petition fails. It is 
dismissed and leave refused, however with note of caution that 
government shall not allow or permit any person to perform 
professional engineering work as defined in the PEC Act, who does not 
possess accredited engineering qualification from the accredited 
engineering institution and his name is not registered as a registered 
engineer or professional engineer under the PEC Act.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 JUDGE 
 
Bench-IV 
Islamabad 
*Hashmi*  
 JUDGE 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING 
 JUDGE 
 
 
 
Announced in open Court on   
03.10.2018  
 
. 
 
 
  
 
 JUDGE 
 
