LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has found no discrimination in giving preference to PhD degree holders from top-ranked institutions of the world over the domestic institutions in appointment of the vice chancellors (VCs) for the public sector universities in Punjab.

“Amidst meager resources allocated by the state for imparting higher education, availability of the VCs possessing extraordinary qualifications, experience and publications from well-reputed universities and centres of excellence in the world is nothing short of a blessing,” Justice Raheel Kamran observed, dismissing a petition challenging the VCs appointment at 11 public universities in the province.

The judge said it can be legitimately expected that the VCs who have earned their PhD degrees from the top-ranked institutions of the world shall, while benefiting from their rich international exposure, endeavuor to promote such excellence in the institutions headed by them.

In his judgement, Justice Kamran remarked, “Undoubtedly, in the capitalist world we are part of, economic disparity and unequal distribution of wealth is a reality.”

He said in Pakistan, adherence to capitalism is evident from the citizens’ fundamental rights to acquire, hold, dispose of property and protection against acquisition of property by the state.

The judge observed that Pakistan is not a communist state and its judges neither have the constitutional mandate nor the capacity to change it that way.

He noted that the Supreme Court, in the case of I.A Sherwani enunciated the principle that discrimination on the basis of reasonable classification was permissible under Article 25 of the Constitution and that different laws could validly be enacted for persons having different standings.

The judge stated that any allegation of discrimination on the basis of inability of a student to fund higher education is indeed a direct attack on the top universities of the world to perpetuate inequality in the field of education, research and excellence.

“At best, what judges of the constitutional courts can do, while dispensing justice, is to mitigate harshness and miseries of the people to the extent permitted by the Constitution,” Justice Kamran added.

The judge expressed concern, saying pursuit of higher education in Pakistan is nothing short of a luxury for a common citizen. He said even a degree in higher education in Pakistan does not guarantee employment.

He said it is common knowledge that PhD programmes offered by top-ranked universities in the world are mostly funded by such institutions or other organisations that offer scholarships and or financial aid to deserving applicants.

Therefore, the judge noted that the selection criteria is not arbitrary and discriminatory but based on a rational nexus with the object of classification.

Prof Dr Sheikh Asrar Ahmad of University of Education Lahore’s Vehari campus filed the petition challenging the criteria set by the government for the appointment of the VCs. The petitioner had also applied for the post, but was not invited for an interview.

He said out of 11 recommended candidates, some had been working for the second and third term as VCs and during their tenure the universities suffered from severe financial and management crises.

He further contended that local PhD degree holders were being treated with discrimination against the foreign degree holders, as without any reasonable classification the former were allocated 29 marks, whereas the latter were assigned 35 marks.

He argued that the criterion constituted violation of Article 25 of the Constitution as foreign universities’ Phd degree was only available to those fortunate ones who possess financial resources to pursue education abroad.

Justice Kamran remarked that the petitioner ought to have challenged the selection criteria notified by the government before applying for the post and not after having been rejected.

In the absence of such a timely challenge, he said, it can be presumed that he accepted the criteria to be valid and expressed no reservation against it.

The judge said the selection criteria generally reflects a policy decision of the provincial government and in the absence of any violation of constitutional guarantee or patent illegality, such policy decision cannot be annulled by the court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Published in Dawn, October 26th, 2024