permission to pursue a Master's Degree in Law from a foreign university was rejected due to insufficient justification and failure to meet specified requirements.
غیر ملکی یونیورسٹی سے ایل ایل ایم کی اجازت — عدالتی سروس میں صوابدید، حق نہیں
تمہیدی پس منظر
اس مقدمے میں پنجاب سب آرڈینیٹ جوڈیشری سروس ٹریبونل، لاہور نے ایک جوڈیشل آفیسر کی اس اپیل کا جائزہ لیا جس میں غیر ملکی یونیورسٹی سے ماسٹر ڈگری اِن لا کرنے کی اجازت نہ دینے کے فیصلے کو چیلنج کیا گیا تھا۔ اپیل کنندہ کا مؤقف تھا کہ اس کے ساتھ امتیازی سلوک کیا گیا اور اس کی درخواست مناسب طور پر زیرِ غور نہیں لائی گئی۔
اپیل کنندہ کا مؤقف
اپیل کنندہ نے یہ موقف اختیار کیا کہ اسے مقامی یونیورسٹی سے ایل ایل ایم کرنے کا مشورہ دینا عدالت کی پالیسی کے منافی ہے۔ اس نے یہ بھی دعویٰ کیا کہ اس کے دیگر ساتھیوں کو ایسی اجازت دی گئی، لہٰذا اس کے ساتھ امتیاز برتا گیا۔ مزید یہ کہ اس کی پیش کردہ وجوہات اور دلائل کو فیصلہ کرتے وقت خاطر میں نہیں لایا گیا۔
جواب دہندہ کا مؤقف
جواب دہندہ کی جانب سے یہ مؤقف اختیار کیا گیا کہ اپیل کنندہ یہ واضح کرنے میں ناکام رہا کہ موجودہ سروس کے مرحلے پر غیر ملکی اعلیٰ تعلیم کیوں ضروری ہے اور یہ ڈگری اس کی پیشہ ورانہ کارکردگی میں کس طرح بہتری لائے گی۔ یہ بھی کہا گیا کہ اپیل کنندہ کی بیان کردہ تعلیمی اہلیت اس کے جوڈیشل فرائض سے براہِ راست متعلق نہیں اور اس کی درخواست مکمل طریقۂ کار کے مطابق سن کر مسترد کی گئی۔
متعلقہ حقائق اور ریکارڈ
ریکارڈ سے ظاہر ہوا کہ اپیل کنندہ سے باضابطہ طور پر تفصیلی وضاحت طلب کی گئی تھی، جس میں اس کی تعلیمی و پیشہ ورانہ کامیابیاں، غیر ملکی تعلیم کی ضرورت، مقامی جامعات سے تقابل اور مالی وسائل کی تفصیل شامل تھی۔ مجاز اتھارٹی اس وضاحت سے مطمئن نہ ہو سکی اور اسی بنیاد پر اجازت دینے سے انکار کیا گیا۔
قانونی اصول اور اختیارِ صوابدید
ٹریبونل نے واضح کیا کہ غیر ملکی اعلیٰ تعلیم کے لیے اجازت دینا کسی جوڈیشل آفیسر کا قانونی حق نہیں بلکہ یہ مجاز اتھارٹی کا اختیارِ صوابدید ہے۔ اس اختیار کا استعمال ہر کیس کے حقائق، ادارہ جاتی ضروریات، دستیاب افرادی قوت اور نافذ پالیسی کی روشنی میں کیا جاتا ہے۔ عدالت نے اس اصول کو تسلیم کیا کہ ایسی اجازت ہر صورت میں دینا لازم نہیں۔
چھٹی اور اعلیٰ تعلیم سے متعلق عدالتی نظائر
عدالت نے یہ اصول دہرایا کہ چھٹی یا اسٹڈی لیو کو حق کے طور پر طلب نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔ ملازم کو قواعد و ضوابط کے تحت درخواست دینی ہوتی ہے اور اتھارٹی حالات کے مطابق اجازت دینے یا انکار کرنے کی مجاز ہوتی ہے۔ ملکی اور غیر ملکی عدالتی نظائر سے بھی یہی ثابت ہوتا ہے کہ ایسی دفعات اختیاری نوعیت کی ہوتی ہیں، لازمی نہیں۔
امتیازی سلوک کے دعوے کا جائزہ
ٹریبونل نے قرار دیا کہ امتیاز کا سوال اس وقت پیدا ہوتا ہے جب حالات یکساں ہوں۔ موجودہ مقدمے میں اپیل کنندہ اپنے حالات کو دوسروں کے برابر ثابت نہیں کر سکا، اس لیے امتیازی سلوک کا دعویٰ قابلِ قبول نہیں سمجھا گیا۔
عدالتی نتیجہ
تمام قانونی اور حقائق کو مدنظر رکھتے ہوئے ٹریبونل نے مجاز اتھارٹی کے فیصلے میں مداخلت سے انکار کیا اور اپیل کو بے بنیاد قرار دے کر مسترد کر دیا۔ تاہم یہ وضاحت بھی کی گئی کہ اپیل کنندہ مناسب مرحلے پر دوبارہ درخواست دینے کا مجاز ہے۔
اہم قانونی نکتہ
یہ فیصلہ اس اصول کو مضبوط کرتا ہے کہ غیر ملکی اعلیٰ تعلیم یا اسٹڈی لیو کی اجازت کوئی مطلق حق نہیں بلکہ ایک انتظامی صوابدید ہے، جس میں عدالتیں صرف اسی صورت مداخلت کرتی ہیں جب فیصلہ قانون یا انصاف کے بنیادی اصولوں کے خلاف ہو۔
Must read Judgement
The appellant's request for permission to pursue a Master's Degree in Law from a foreign university was rejected due to insufficient justification and failure to meet specified requirements.
UNJAB SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY
SERVICE TRIBUNAL LAHORE
Service Appeal No. 15 of 2023
Syed Faizan e Rasool
Versus
The Lahore High Court, Lahore through its Registrar
J U D G M E N T
Date of hearing: 25.04.2024.
Appellant by:
In person.
Respondent by:
Mr. Muhammad Nauman Sarwar,
Advocate.
MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J. / CHAIRMAN:-
Through instant appeal, appellant has challenged letter dated
25.08.2023, issued by respondent, whereby his representation for
permission to apply for a Master Degree in Law from a foreign
university, was declined.
2. The appellant, in person, submits that impugned direction to
approach a local university for admission in LLM is not in
consonance with declared policy of this Court. He further submits
that appellant has been subjected to gross discrimination in the
matter as his other colleagues have been granted such permissions.
Adds that appellant’s submissions have not been dilated upon while
deciding his representation. In support, he has placed reliance on
Usman Ali Chhachhar v. Moula Bux Chachhar and others (2019
SCMR 2043), Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Limited v.
Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance,
Central Secretariat, Islamabad and others (2015 SCMR 630), Abid
Hassan and others v. P.I.A.C. and others (2005 SCMR 25),
Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi v. Pakistan
Mutual Insurance Company Limited, Rawalpindi (PLD 1991
Supreme Court 14), Pakistan Medical and Dental Council through
Authorized Representative v. Muhammad Junaid Alam and others
(PLD 2019 Lahore 234), Ameer Afzal etc. v. Govt. of Punjab (NLR
Service Appeal No. 15 of 2023
2016 Service 34) and Dr. Sikandar Ali v. Government College
University, Lahore through Vice-Chancellor [2012 PLC (C.S.)
1119].
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submits that
appellant failed to provide reasons motivating him at this stage of
service to get higher education from a foreign university and how
the degree would play a pivotal role in his personal growth and add
value to his job. He contends that the qualification / education i.e.
Gender Sensitization, possessed by appellant and mentioned in the
contents of his application / appeal, has no relevance with the duties
and functions as a judicial officer. He argues that appellant’s
representation was decided after providing reasonable opportunity of
hearing and attending all the grounds raised by him. He contends
that question of discrimination does not arise in view of peculiar
facts and circumstances of this case.
4. Heard. Available record perused.
5. Earlier, appellant’s request for permission to apply for Fulbright
Scholarship and Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program 2024 was
not acceded to vide letter dated 04.05.2024, however the same is not
assailed through this appeal. Presently, the matter of declining
permission to apply for a Master’s Degree in Law from a Foreign
University is before this Tribunal. Record shows that in response to
appellant’s request, the respondent-department, vide letter dated
14.06.2023, required appellant to justify his stance in the following
manner:-
a.
to place on record his achievements at
College/University/Local/National Level, in field of Law, prior
to and after joining his service as Civil Judge, with
documentary proofs in form of Certificates, Research
work/papers, land-mark judgments etc. including distinctions
he made during his trainings/courses at Federal/Punjab
Judicial Academy(s), to support his keen interest in specific
subjects for LLM from a foreign university.
b.
to submit that how much time he took to join his service as
Civil Judge after his graduation in Law and what academic
achievements he gained during that period specifically.
c.
to give reason(s) (at least three in number) that
instigate/motivate him at this stage of service to get higher
education from foreign university and how that particular
degree will play a pivotal role in his personal growth and how
his personal growth can add value in his work and ultimately
to this institute.
Service Appeal No. 15 of 2023
d.
to indicate the name(s) of the local university(s), he
approached and how his desired foreign work/syllabus
University(s)'s course superior to course work/syllabus of
those local universities.
e.
to state the tentative amounts of direct and indirect expenses
involved for his foreign studies i.e. Tuition Fees,
Accommodation expenses, Travelling expenses, meal
expenses etc. and to pinpoint the sources, by which he
intends to meet them all.
6. The stance of respondent, inter-alia, is that appellant could not
satisfy the competent authority in answering the questions put to him
whereas appellant vehemently contends that he is equipped with
plausible reasons and material to justify his request coupled with the
argument of discriminatory treatment. We are not inclined to enter
into factual aspects of the matter, rather intend to decide the matter
on legal plane.
7. As per law, grant of permission to apply for higher education
and that too from a foreign university is not a rule of thumb for
every judicial officer, and the same is also not backed by any
express provisions of law or rules or policy instructions or prevalent
practice and this legal position is not disputed by appellant. This
matter pertains to discretion of the authority to be exercised in the
light of attending facts and circumstances of each case, saddled with
certain requirements / qualifications. In this case, the authority is not
persuaded to exercise discretion for a number of reasons. The
appellant, despite arguing the case at some length, could not
convince us that the authority can be compelled to exercise the same
in each and every case, especially when there is scarcity of Judicial
Officers as compared to bulk of pending cases and in view of the
prevalent policy of the authority circulated vide letter dated
25.03.2024.
8. In matters of grant of leave, it is well-settled that such
discretion cannot be claimed as of right, but for seeking such relief
the applicant must follow the proper procedure provided under the
rules and he is not supposed to avail any kind of leave entirely in his
discretion and choice in departure to the rules and service discipline.
Reference can be made to Muhammad Ali Bukhari v Federation of
Pakistan through Establishment Secretary, Islamabad and 2 others
(2008 SCMR 214) and Allah Ditta v. Director of Education,
Service Appeal No. 15 of 2023
Colleges, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur and another [1992
PLC (C.S.) 571]
In Indian context, the Delhi High Court in the case reported as
Anita Malik v. A.I.I.M.S. & another [2006(129) DLT 136] observed
that it is no doubt true that the rule talks of eligibility and enables the
Government or the concerned employer to grant study leave if the
employee desirous of such a facility, fulfills the conditions. However,
the rule is not cast in imperative terms. It is only an enabling
discretionary provision and necessarily has to be exercised having
regard to the circumstances of the case.
Furthermore, the High Court of Kerala in P. Geetha v. Kerala
Livestock Development Board Ltd. And another (2015(1) Ker L.J.
494) while discussing the Kerala Livestock Development Board
Limited Staff Rules & Regulations, 1993 opined that leave cannot be
claimed as a matter of right, and that under exigent circumstances, the
leave sanctioning authority has the discretion to refuse, postpone,
curtail or revoke leave of any description and/or to recall to duty any
employee on leave.
9. In view of the foregoing, we are not inclined to interfere in the
impugned order. The case law, relied upon by appellant, is
distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of this case.
10. Resultantly, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
However, appellant may apply again for such permission at an
appropriate stage.
(Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi)
Chairman
(Abid Husain Chattha)
(Rasaal Hasan Syed)
Member
Member
APPROVED FOR REPORTING