IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.536 OF 2015 
(Against judgment dated 04.2.2015 of the 
Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed 
in Writ Petition No.1012 of 2014) 
 
Dr. Ikramullah Khan 
 
 
 
 
… 
Petitioner 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Agricultural University, 
Peshawar and others 
 
 
 
 
… 
Respondents 
 
 
 
For the petitioner:  
 
Mr. M.Shoaib Shaheen, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
For respondent Nos.1-5:  
Mr. Khalid Khan, ASC 
 
For respondent Nos.6-7:  
Mr. Tanvirul Islam, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR. 
Respondent No.8.  
 
Not represented 
On Court’s Call: 
 
 
Dr.M.Mukhtar, Chairman HEC 
 
 
 
 
 
Professor Khan Bahadur 
 
 
 
 
 
Professor M.Ismail. 
 
Date of hearing 
 
 
08.3.2018 
ORDER 
 
MAQBOOL BAQAR, J. - The grievance of the 
petitioner is that though he has achieved his Doctor of Philosophy 
(PhD) degree, in “Weed Sciences”, and also possess the requisite 
length of ten (10) year experience, as prescribed for the post of 
Associate Professor (BS-20) but he has not been selected for the said 
post, and instead respondent No.6 and 7, who have neither been 
conferred doctorate in “Weed Science” nor do they possess the requite 
experience, have been selected for such appointment.  
2 
 
 
 
 
2. 
Applications were invited, inter alia, for the post of 
Associate Professor (BS-20) in Weed Science Department by 
respondent No.2. According to the petitioner, he along with 
respondent No.6 and 7, applied for the said post. However he was the 
only candidate who has earned PhD in Weed Science, as the 
doctorate conferred on respondent No.6 was in “Bio Technology”, 
whereas respondent No.7 has earned his Doctorate in “Agricultural 
Sciences”. The petitioner further submitted that having been 
appointed as a Lecturer in the Weed Science Department on regular 
basis on 17.2.2003, he, at the relevant time possessed the requisite 
teaching experience of ten (10), years whereas respondents No.6 and 
7 lacked such experience as it was through order dated 03.2.2005, 
that the appointments of said respondents as Lecturers were 
regularised with effect from 18.1.2005 and thus their experience 
comes to eight (8) years 4 months and 27 days only. 
3. 
On the other hand respondent No.6 denied the 
petitioner self-professed exclusivity, and claimed that her PhD also is 
in the field of “Weed Science”, which fact according to her, is evident 
from the title of her thesis, and has also been verified by Professor 
Hiroshi Matumoto, of the Faculty of Life and Environment Sciences, 
who remained her principal supervisor during her pursuit of the 
degree, through his letter dated 15.4.2014, by, inter alia, stating that 
“There is no doubt that her degree is in Weed Science.” She claimed 
that her research papers have been published in various national 
and international reputable weed science journals like the “Journal of 
3 
 
 
 
 
the Weed Science Society of America.” She stated that after being 
awarded Master of Science (Honours) in Weed Science by NWFP 
Agriculture University, she was, on 01.2.2003 appointed as a 
Lecturer in the Weed Science Department of the University, which 
appointment was, through order dated 03.2.2005, regularised with 
effect from 01.1.2005. In 2006 she proceeded to pursue her PhD 
study and research programme in Weed Science, and was conferred a 
Doctorate in Weed Science in 2010, whereafter she resumed teaching 
in the respondent University, and was through order dated 17.9.2010 
appointed as an Assistant Professor (BS-19), in the Department of 
Weed Science. In April 2011 she proceeded for her Post-doctorate in 
Weed Science. Respondent No.6 further stated that her teaching 
experience at the time of the closing date for the submission of the 
application was over 10 years. She claimed that being an HEC 
approved supervisor in the subject of weed science she is competent 
to supervise the students in pursuit of their PhD degree in Weed 
Science.  
4. 
Whereas respondent No.7 claimed that after obtaining 
his Masters of Science (Honours) in Weed Science from NWFP 
University, on 16.9.2002, he joined the University, as a Lecturer on 
contract 
basis 
in 
the 
department 
of 
Weed 
Science, 
which 
appointment was, through order dated 03.2.2005 regularised with 
effect from 18.2.2005. He being a Lecturer in the department of Weed 
Science, HEC awarded to him a scholarship for a PhD programme in 
Weed Science, of the School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 
4 
 
 
 
 
University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia in 2006, and after 
being conferred a doctorate degree in Weed Science, he came back to 
Pakistan in 2011. According to respondent No.7, it was on the basis 
of the said degree that HEC, through letter dated 17.4.2014, 
accredited him to supervise the students/candidates pursuing their 
PhD studies and research in Weed Science. Respondent No.7 also 
claimed that by the closing date, he has earned eleven (11) years of 
experience which was one year in excess of the required experience. 
5. 
In order to resolve the controversy regarding the field 
and scope of the subject degrees, this Court through order dated 
30.10.2017, directed the petitioner, and respondents No. 6 & 7, to 
submit copies of their dissertation, and also desired to hear the 
Chairman, Higher Education Commission (HEC), along with an 
expert in Weed and Agriculture Sciences. In compliance with the said 
order, the Chairman HEC, along with an expert appeared before the 
Court. He submitted that in order to determine as to which particular 
field of Agriculture Science, the doctorate degrees conferred upon 
respondents No. 6 & 7 pertains to, a thorough perusal of the 
dissertation submitted by them would be required. He thus 
constituted a Committee comprising Dr. Professor Khan Bahadar 
Marwar, Pioneer chairman, Weed Science (Retd), University of 
Agricultural, Peshawar, and Dr. Professor Zahid Ata Cheema, Ex-
Chairman, Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture, 
Faisalabad. On 15.02.2018 the Chairman HEC submitted his report 
regarding the appraisal of the dissertations of the petitioner and the 
5 
 
 
 
 
respondents undertaken by the aforesaid experts Committee. From 
the minutes of the meeting of the said Committee, held  on 11th 
January, 2018, a copy whereof is annexed to the Chairman’s report, 
it can be seen that the Committee upon examining the dissertations, 
and after due deliberation has come to the conclusion that the 
dissertations/thesis of all three of them, pertain to the field of Weed 
Science. Through their “general remarks” as incorporated in the said 
minutes, the Professors seem to have conveyed that normally in 
relation to foreign degrees conferring a doctorate on a candidate it is 
not the text of the degree, but the research conducted by the 
candidates (which certainly is reflected through their dissertations) 
which is determinative of the specific area or specialization of/in a 
particular subject the doctorate has been conferred.  
6. 
As regards the thesis submitted by respondent No. 6, 
which is titled “Mechanism of Trifluralin Resistance in Alopecurus 
Aequalis”, it is submitted that the same delves into the Resistance 
Mechanism of “Trifluralin (Treflan) in a renowned weed known as 
“alopecurus aequalis”, the degree, in the words of the said experts 
therefore irrefutably pertains to the field of Weed Science. The 
contents of the thesis highlighted in the minutes leave no manner of 
doubt that the focus of the thesis, all the way, is on resistance of 
herbicide in Weeds and the matters related thereto. However, for a 
better comprehension of the issue, the contents of the thesis as 
mentioned in the report are reproduced hereunder: 
6 
 
 
 
 
 
i. 
Bioassay to confirm the resistance of herbicide in 
weeds 
 
ii. 
Absorption and translocation of 14C (Labelled 
Carbon) Trifluralin in  
concerned weed 
 
iii 
Cloning and isolation of tubulin genes 
 
iv. 
Cloning 
of 
AaTUA 
genes 
from 
Trifluralin 
resistance types of concerned weed 
 
v. 
Tubulin genes expression in concerned weed. 
 
7. 
Similarly, as per the minutes, the thesis submitted by 
respondent No. 7, titled “Long Term Sustainable Management of 
Parthenium Weed, using Suppressive Pasture Plants” pertains to “one 
of the most noxious weeds of the world, namely, Parthenium, 
particularly its management, and use of suppressive plants for the 
purpose. The contents of the respondent No. 7’s thesis are as follow: 
i. 
The general introduction to the weed Parthenium 
and its menace 
ii. 
Management options for concerned weed 
iii. 
Selection of suppressive plants through glass 
house study 
iv. 
Suppression of Parthenium through field study 
v. 
Suppression 
of 
Parthenium 
weed 
through 
simulated grazing 
vi. 
Suppression 
of 
Parthenium 
under 
elevated 
Carbon Dioxide (conditions) 
vii. 
It includes the general discussion in conclusion 
of the study. 
 
The above makes it abundantly clear that the degree of respondent 
No. 
7 
also 
is 
conferred 
on 
the 
basis 
of 
research 
and 
dissertation/thesis in the field of Weed Science. 
8. 
In his report the Chairman, HEC fully endorsed the 
opinion and findings expressed by the experts Committee. He pointed 
out that the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 both were conferred 
their doctorates by the University on Queensland Australia, and 
conducted their studies and research at the said University under 
one and the same Professor, namely, Steve Adkins. However, as per 
the University’s practice, as reflected from an e-mail addressed to 
7 
 
 
 
 
respondent No. 7 upon his successfully completing the PhD Program, 
the University requested him to inform it, as to what title he would 
prefer to be incorporated in his PhD degree, and it was thus on the 
choosing of respondent No. 7 that his degree was described as that in 
“the field of Agriculture Science”. However this Court by way of an 
abundant caution sought a further input in the matter, by also 
keeping in view the academic history of the petitioner and the 
aforesaid respondents, and on 15.02.2018 ordered accordingly.  
9. 
In pursuance of the said order, the Chairman HEC 
constituted a fresh Committee by adding two more experts to the 
earlier Committee, namely, Dr. Tariq Mehmood, Professor, PMAS Arid 
Agriculture University, Peshawar and Dr. Sikander Khan Tanveer, 
Weed Program Leader/Principal Scientific Officer, Crop Scientist 
Institute, National Agriculture Research Centre (NARC), Islamabad. 
As per the report submitted by the Chairman HEC the said experts, 
after reviewing and analyzing the subject dissertations thoroughly, 
firmly expressed that the thesis/dissertations of all the three 
candidates pertain to Weed Science. The minutes of the deliberation 
of the Committee, which also contains a brief resume of the subject 
dissertations reinforces their opinion that the dissertation forming 
basis of the degrees in question relates to the field of Weed Science. 
Analyzing the dissertation/thesis of respondent No. 7 the Committee 
submitted that he has studied the management options of the 
Parathenium weed, suppression of Parthenium through suppressive 
plants in glass house as well as in the field and that he also studied 
8 
 
 
 
 
weed suppression through simulated grazing of animals, and under 
elevated Co2 conditions and has also recommended suppressive 
plants for such management. As regards the dissertation/thesis of 
respondent No.6, the committee stated that she had conducted 
bioassay studies to confirm herbicide resistance and used C14 
trifurcation for absorption and translocation in the same weed and 
that she also conducted molecular study to clone and isolate tubulin 
genes and further studied expression of AaTUA genes in Alopecurus 
aequalis, which is a common weed. The subject, scope and the focus 
of respondents in their doctorate program was therefore evidently and 
clearly relating to the management of weeds which falls within the 
ambit of Weed Science. It may also be beneficial to note here that 
Weed Science is the discipline concerned with plants that may be 
considered weeds, their effects on human activities and their 
management. It is the study of vegetation in agriculture, aquatics and 
horticulture. 
10. 
The minutes also contain information about the 
academic history of the petitioner and the said respondents as 
follows: 
Degree 
Dr. 
Ikramullah 
Khan, petitioner 
Dr. Saima Hashim, 
respondent No. 6 
Dr. Naeem Khan, 
respondent No. 7 
Graduation 
• 
BSC-2 year 
• 
Gomal University, 
DIK (14 years of 
schooling) 
• 
BSC (Hons) 
Agriculture 
(4 years) 
• 
NWFP Agricultural 
University 
Peshawar, 16 years 
of schooling 
 
• 
BSC (Hons) 
Agriculture 
(4 years) 
• 
NWFP 
Agricultural 
University 
Peshawar, 
16 
years 
of 
schooling 
 
MSC 
▪ MSC (Botany)- 2 
years 
▪ 
Department 
of 
▪ Already covered in 
BSC (Hons) Program 
▪ 
Transcript/Detailed 
Already covered in 
BSC 
(Hons) 
Program 
9 
 
 
 
 
Botany University of 
Peshawar 
▪ Transcript/Detailed 
Marks 
certificate 
(DMC) not provided 
therefore 
cannot 
comment 
on 
relevancy of courses 
taken  
▪ 
(16 
years 
of 
schooling) 
Marks 
Certificate 
(DMC) 
ascertain 
the 
relevancy of courses in 
the 
area 
of 
Weed 
Science 
▪ 
Transcript/ 
Detailed 
Marks 
Certificate 
(DMC) 
ascertain 
the 
relevancy 
of 
courses in the area 
of Weed Science 
MPhil 
▪ MPhil (Botany) 
▪ 
Department 
of 
Botany University of 
Peshawar, Peshawar 
▪ 
Field 
of 
Specialization: 
Botany 
(Invasive 
Weeds) 
▪ Transcript detailed 
Marks 
Certificate 
(DMC) not provided 
therefore 
cannot 
comment 
on 
relevancy of courses 
taken  
▪ 
18 
years 
of 
schooling 
▪ 
M.Sc 
(Hons) 
Agriculture 
▪ Department of Weed 
Science, 
NWFP 
Agricultural University 
Peshawar 
▪ 
MPhil 
in 
Weed 
Science with courses 
and 
dissertation 
in 
Weed Science  
▪ 18 years of schooling 
▪ 
M.Sc 
(Hons) 
Agriculture 
▪ 
Department 
of 
Weed 
Science, 
NWFP Agricultural 
University 
Peshawar 
▪ MPhil in Weed 
Science 
with 
courses 
and 
dissertation 
in 
Weed Science  
▪ 
18 
years 
of 
schooling 
PhD 
▪ Dissertation title: 
Spread 
of 
Weed 
Seeds 
and 
its 
Prevention 
▪ Dissertation title: 
Mechanism 
of 
Trifluralin 
Resistance 
in Alopecurus aequalis 
▪ Dissertation title: 
Long 
Term, 
Sustainable 
Management 
of 
Parthenium 
Weed 
(Parthenium 
Hysterophorus 
L.) 
Using 
suppressive 
Pasture Plants 
 
From the above it can be seen that the petitioner did his MSc in 
Botany, however since he has not furnished his detailed marks sheet 
the specific field of such degree is not known. He however did MPhil 
in Botany with specialization in invasive weeds. On the other hand 
respondent No. 6 & 7 have done their BSc (Honors), in Agriculture, 
and their MSc (Honors), as well as MPhil in Weed Science, and their 
dissertation/thesis also was in Weed Science, and therefore Weed 
Science has remained the subject of their academic pursuit since 
earlier than that of the petitioner.  
11. 
In addition to the foregoing, the respondents’ claim of 
their having earned doctoral in Weed Science is also verified and 
10 
 
 
 
 
reinforced from the letters written by their advisor, and principal 
supervisor, respectively, and thus through letter dated 15.4.2014, Dr. 
Professor Hiroshi Matsumoto, of Faculty of Life and Environmental 
Sciences, 
Director, 
Center 
in 
Research 
for 
Isotopes 
and 
Environmental Dynamics, University of Tsukuba, Japan, whilst 
verifying that he was the advisor of respondent No.6 during her PhD 
thesis, stated that her research was on Herbicides Resistance, which 
is a major problem conferring the contemporary Weed Science and 
unequivocally confirmed that her degree is in Weed Science. The 
Professor further stated that the PhD research papers of respondent 
No.6 have been published in Weed Science, the oldest journal of 
Weed Science. Likewise, Professor Steve Adkins, through his 
letter/certificate of April 2014, verified that respondent No.7 has 
conducted research studies for PhD under his supervision and also 
under the supervision of Dr’s Doug George and Chris O’Donnell, at 
the University of Queensland, Brisbane, and that respondent No.7 
carried out his PhD studies on the “Long term sustainable 
management of Parthenium Weed (Parthenium hysterophorus L.) 
using suppressive pasture plants” and that his research work delved 
into the question as to how certain pasture plants would suppress 
the growth of parthenium weed, which is a significant invasive alien 
weed in more than 30 countries in an attempt to find ways of better 
management thereof, and that the evaluation of his work was 
conducted by external weed experts, before the PhD degree was 
awarded to him. The Professor clearly stated that the subject area of 
11 
 
 
 
 
the said respondent’s thesis was “Weed Science” and further that the 
respondent No.7, during his stay at the University learned research 
skills in many areas of Weed Science, and management of world’s 
most important invasive alien weeds, parthenium weed. He 
appreciated respondent No.7, inter alia, by saying that he fitted well 
into the Tropical and Subtropical Weeds Research Units within the 
University and reiterated that the subject area of his Doctoral study 
was “Weed Science” and that he has also published papers in the 
journals pertaining to Weed Science of national and international 
significance.  
12. 
Indeed, it is true that the text of the PhD degrees 
awarded to the aforesaid respondents do not contain the word “Weed 
Science”, however, as stated by the experts and academics on the 
subject, it is not the text of the degree that are determinative of the 
question, as to in which specific field or the area of a particular 
subject, 
the 
degree 
has 
been 
awarded, 
it 
is 
rather 
the 
dissertation/thesis which reveals the field/specialization and the 
scope of the degree. 
13. 
We may observe here that PhD degrees are awarded 
for programs across a wide spectrum of academic fields. During his 
doctorate programme, usually a candidate has to complete a course 
work and comprehensive examinations. The candidate also has to 
work on his dissertation/thesis. A PhD candidate has to submit a 
project, thesis or dissertation, often consisting of a body of original 
academic research. As has been thoroughly examined and analysed 
12 
 
 
 
 
by the experts who were assigned the task by the Chairman HEC 
under order of this Court, and as also evident from the afore-
discussed letters of the research supervisor/advisors of the said two 
respondents, 
the 
study, 
and 
research 
conducted 
and 
dissertation/thesis written and submitted by them in pursuit of their 
doctorate degrees, were undoubtedly in the field of Weed Science and 
therefore the petitioner, who too has done his PhD in Weed Science 
should have known the above fully well, and ought to have avoided 
initiating 
legal 
proceedings 
challenging 
the 
appointment 
of 
respondent No.6 and 7 on the frivolous grounds as urged by him. 
14. 
The 
petitioner’s 
objection 
that 
the 
said 
two 
respondents did not possess the requisite experience, also is clearly 
untenable, baseless and frivolous, as the said respondents have since 
their appointment on 01.2.2003 and 16.9.2002, been teaching Weed 
Science in the respondent University. The fact as to when and on 
what date, their such appointments were confirmed has absolutely 
no relevance in the matter at all, more so when it has not even been 
alleged that they were not teaching the students on regular/ full time 
basis, like the petitioner, or any other lecturer/teacher appointed on 
regular basis. Furthermore, as noted in the impugned judgment, 
since the credential and academic qualifications of the respondents 
were evaluated by three subject specialist from outside the 
Respondents’ university, and the same were re-evaluated by a high 
profile committee and were after going through the said process, 
granted marks higher than those granted to the petitioner, and their 
13 
 
 
 
 
re-evaluation by the Selection Board was approbated by the 
Syndicate of the University. Neither the High Court, nor this Court 
can, in the facts and circumstances of the case, substitute such 
evaluation, 
opinion 
and 
recommendation 
in 
favour 
of 
the 
respondents. 
13. 
We therefore do not find any merit in the petitioner’s 
case and would refuse leave, and dismiss the petition accordingly.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Announced in open Court on 12.4.2018 
at Islamabad 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge. 
 
‘APPROVED FOR REPORTING’ 
(Aamir Sh.)