Kamran Khan Vs University of Malakand through its Registrar & others

Judgment Sheet

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

(Judicial Department)

WP No.10473-P/2025

Kamran Khan Vs University of Malakand through its Registrar & others

JUDGMENT

For petitioner(s): Mr. Haseeb Ayaz Advocate Date of hearing: 02.01.2026

MUHAMMAD TARIQ AFRIDI, J.- Through the instant writ petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

“In view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may graciously be pleased to:

i. Declare the impugned orders dated 01.12.2025 and 18.12.2025 as illegal, unlawful, void ab initio, and of no legal effect;

ii. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 01.12.2025 and 18.12.2025 may please be set at naught, dismissed and set aside;

iii. Declare that the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan for the post of Assistant Professor of Law (BPS-19) advertised under Advertisement No. 01/2025;

iv. Direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as eligible, include him in the list of eligible candidates, and allow him to participate in the selection process strictly in accordance with law; and

(Ghafoor Zaman) (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Tariq Afridi Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Fayaz

v. Grant any other relief deemed just, equitable, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2.Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as pleaded in the instant writ petition, are that the petitioner is a law graduate, duly enrolled as an Advocate with the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council. It is averred that the petitioner actively practiced the profession of law at District Courts from 20th October, 2020 to 17th October, 2024; served as a full-time faculty member from 28th August, 2023 to 28th August, 2024 in the Department of Law at Edwards College, Peshawar; and joined Bahria University Law School, Islamabad, as a full-time faculty member in the capacity of Lecturer on 2nd September, 2024, where he has been serving to date. It is further averred that respondent-university issued Advertisement No. 01/2025 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professor of Law (BPS-19), governed by the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Higher Education Commission (HEC), which, inter alia, prescribes four years’ teaching / research experience or professional experience in the relevant field. The petitioner applied for the subject post; however, the Scrutiny Committee of the respondent-university, vide letter dated 01.12.2025, declared the petitioner ineligible on the ground of being “short of experience” prompting the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Committee, but vide order dated 18.12.2025, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the (Ghafoor Zaman) (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Tariq Afridi Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Fayaz

impugned orders, the petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, with the prayer as aforesaid.

3.Arguments heard. Record perused.

4.It is contended that the petitioner practiced the profession of law at District Courts from 20th October, 2020 to 17th October, 2024, as certified by the President, District Bar Association, Timergara, Dir Lower; served as a full-time faculty member in the capacity of Lecturer in the Department of Law at Edwards College, Peshawar from 28th August, 2023 to 28th August, 2024; and thereafter joined Bahria University Law School, Islamabad, as a full-time faculty member in the capacity of Lecturer on 2nd September, 2024, where he has been serving to date. It is argued that the combined professional and teaching experience of the petitioner was more than four years and, as such, he demonstrably met the prescribed threshold for the post of Assistant Professor of Law (BPS-19).

The rejection of his candidature on the ground of alleged deficiency in experience was misconceived, arbitrary, and contrary to the record, the learned counsel added, concluding that the petitioner, having fulfilled the prescribed criteria, was entitled to due consideration for appointment, and any denial thereof amounts to violation of his fundamental rights (Ghafoor Zaman) (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Tariq Afridi Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Fayaz

warranting interference of this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.

5.Admittedly, the petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate, purportedly practicing the profession of law at the District Courts from 20th October, 2020 to 17th October, 2024. The contents of his appeal before the Appellate Committee and the documents appended with this petition reveal that the petitioner simultaneously served as a full-time faculty member at the Department of Law at Edwards College, Peshawar from 28th August, 2023 to 28th August, 2024, followed by joining Bahria University Law School, Islamabad as a full-time faculty member in the capacity of Lecturer on 2nd September, 2024.

Notably, the petitioner did not seek suspension of his license from the Bar Council, as mandated under Rule 108-O of the Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, which reads as under:

108-O. An Advocate having his name on the Roll of a Bar Council shall apply to the later that his certificate be suspended because he intends to join some other profession, business, service or vocation:

Provided further that if he fails to seek such suspension within one month of such engagement or employment in such other profession or service he shall be guilty of professional misconduct under the Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act, 1973 and his name shall also be removed from the roll of Advocates.

6.The above quoted provision is well conceivable and leaves no ambiguity. An Advocate who joins another profession (Ghafoor Zaman) (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Tariq Afridi Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Fayaz

or service must suspend his practicing certificate within one month, failing which, he becomes guilty of professional misconduct and liable to removal from the roll of Advocates.

The petitioner, by his own admission, joined full-time service in August 2023 and again in September 2024, but did not seek suspension of his practicing license.

7.The eligibility criteria for the post in question required, inter alia, four years’ teaching, research, or professional experience. The petitioner attempted to combine his practice and teaching experience to meet the eligibility threshold;

however, such combination cannot be sanctified once it is found to have been tainted by violation of Rule 108-O of the Rules of 1976.

8.It is a settled principle that a person invoking constitutional jurisdiction must approach the Court with clean hands. Violation of statutory obligations disentitles a petitioner from equitable relief. In the present case, the petitioner’s failure to comply with Rule 108-O of the Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, coupled with his reliance on experience accrued in violation of law, demonstrates that he has not come to this Court with clean hands.

9.The jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is discretionary in nature. It is not a matter of right but an equitable remedy, to be exercised only where the petitioner (Ghafoor Zaman) (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Tariq Afridi Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Fayaz

demonstrates lawful entitlement and approaches the Court without blemish. Relief cannot be granted where the claim is tainted by illegality or where the petitioner seeks to benefit from his own wrong. The principle of law is well established that no person can derive advantage from an act which is itself unlawful. Jurisprudence has consistently recognized that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be exercised to perpetuate or sanctify illegality. The extraordinary powers conferred upon this Court are intended to foster justice and correct wrongs, not to uphold or sanctify actions that are fundamentally unlawful or perverse.

10.In these circumstances, the petitioner’s claim, palpably in violation of Rule 108-O of the Rules of 1976, cannot be sustained. The Scrutiny Committee and Appellate Committee rightly rejected his candidature, and their orders suffer from no legal infirmity. Therefore, we do not see any ground for the indulgence of this Court.

11.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed in limine.

Announced 02.01.2026 Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

(Ghafoor Zaman) (D.B.) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Tariq Afridi Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Fayaz