FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
RECRUITMENT WING
Subject:- MINUTES OF MEETING CONVENED AT THE FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (FPSC) TO DISCUSS THE STATUS/ EQUIVALENCE OF DEGREES AWARDED TO TECHNOLOGISTS
On the request of the Chairman, Pakistan Council of Technologists (PCT) to the Chairman FPSC to discuss and seek solution to the problems being faced by technologists, a meeting on the subject was convened at 10.00 AM on 19-02-2011 in the FPSC Conference Room.
2. The meeting was chaired by Maj. Gen. (Retd) Ovais Mushtaq Qureshi, Member FPSC. The following officers attended the meeting.
i. Mr. Sadiq Ali Anjum, Director General (Recruitment), FPSC.
ii. Mr. Rahim Baksh Channa, Director General (A&A) HEC.
iii. Mr. M. Javeed Khan, Advisor HEC.
iv. Mr. Anjum Pervez Addl.General Manager, (Infrastructure) Pakistan Railways.
v. Brig. Mushtaq Ahmad, DR&S, E-in-C’s Branch DP&A Dte, GHQ, Rawalpindi.
vi. Engr. Z.M. Peracha, Secretary/Registrar, Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC).
vii. Engr. Dr. Nasir Mahmood Khan, Additional Registrar, PEC.
viii. Mr. Zafar Iqbal Minhas, MTLA, PEC.
ix. Mr. Safdar, Superintending Engineer, Pak. PWD.
x. Mr. Ramiz Ahmad Director (FS), FPSC.
xi. Mr. Azmat Hayat Malik, Director (T&S), FPSC.
xii. A delegation from the Pakistan Council of Technologists
comprising:-a. Prof. Javed Iqbal, Chairman, b. M. Farooq Raja, Secretary, c. Muhammad Tahir, d. Abid Bukhari, e. Ijar Sulehri, f. Imam Buksh, g. M. Yaqoob Raza, h. Khurshid Shanwari.
3. Mr. Naguib Ullah Malik, Member FPSC could not attend the meeting due to his preoccupation.
4. After recitation from the Holy Quran, the chair welcomed the participants and apprised the meeting that the main agenda and purpose of the meeting was to take all stakeholders on board on the issue of equivalence of B.Tech (Hons) degree and resolve its relationship/equivalence with Bachelor of Engineering. Thereafter, representatives of the Pakistan Council of Technologists (PCT) were asked to give presentation on the issue.
5. Secretary, (PCT) presented that since the inception of B.Tech Programme in 1973, the B.Tech (Hons) degree has been treated as equivalent to Bachelor of Engineering and as such the B.Tech (Hons) degree holders are being recruited for posts where the required qualification is BE. In support of his claim, he stated that the disciplines of engineering and technology overlap each other and there are a lot of commonalities between the two. He also cited a decision of HEC wherein HEC had recognized the B.Tech (Hons) degree equivalent to BE degree.
Another justification that was cited was the Judgment of the Supreme Court taken in Suo Moto Review Petition 52 of 1993 (Annex-I) which related to equivalence of B.Tech (Hons) degree with BE degree.
He and the other participants of PCT argued that the degree of B.Tech (Hons) should be treated at par with BE and the recruitment of B.Tech (Hons) degree holders against the posts where BE is the required qualification be accepted by FPSC which had ruled that B.Tech (Hons) degree is not acceptable where B.E. is the prescribed qualification on the basis of resolutions passed by the PEC in its 22nd Annual General Body Meeting held on 17.4.2010 and HEC vide their letter dated 1.9.2010 (Annexes II & III).
6. On the issues brought out by Secretary, PCT, the views expressed by other stakeholders and their stance on these issues was as under:
HEC: The Adviser HEC reiterated their earlier stance taken in HEC’s 39th Meeting held on 12.2.1998 according to which the two degrees do have some commonalities of subjects but are not to be treated as equivalent to one another. However they contended that the employer is the best judge
to determine the type of qualification required for a particular job. (The HEC decision is attached as Annex-III):
(i) MES/E-in-C: The representative of E-in-C stated that on the basis of their past experience it was the considered opinion of GHQ that the holders of B.Tech (Hons) could only be suitably employed in BS-16 posts unless otherwise provided in the recruitment rules. But to recruit them directly against posts in grade 17 and above where B.E is the required qualification is not appropriate because they do not possess the desired level of knowledge and expertise possessed by holders of BE degree and doing so would be unfair for the profession of Engineering. If the two degrees are accepted as equivalent then the quality of work relating to Engineering is likely to be seriously compromised.
(ii) Railways: The representative of the Railways was of the view that though the technologists are contributing a lot in his department, the absence of any regulatory regime to standardize the curriculum and qualification standards of B.Tech (Hons) degree inhibits the recruitment of holders of B.Tech (Hons) against posts requiring degree of Bachelors of Engineering.
(iii) Pak PWD: The representative was of the view that pre-requisites for admission in disciplines of B.Tech and B.E. should also be taken into account while taking decision on equivalence of the two degrees which, according to him, can never be treated as equivalent.
(iv) PEC: The representative of PEC stated that the B.Tech (Hons) degree is not accredited by PEC. In fact “Technology” and “Engineering” are two separate and distinct streams, with different, distinct syllabi and programme objectives. This has also been the considered view of all the Vice-Chancellors of UETs, who are themselves the degree awarding authorities. Under the provisions of the PEC Act, the “Accredited Engineering Qualification” means any of the qualifications included in First Schedule or Second Schedule of the Act. The B.Tech (Pass) or B.Tech (Hons) had never been included in the said schedules. [In the recent past
the PEC in its 22nd Annual General Body Meeting has adopted two resolutions regarding non acceptance of B.Tech degree as equivalent to B.E. degree vide their letter dated 15.11.2010 (Annex-IV).
According to PEC, the regulations and monitoring of “Technology” education in Pakistan had not been assigned to any Regulatory Body which not only caused deterioration, but resulted in frustration amongst the technologists.
7. Representatives of the FPSC informed the participants that as far as recruitment through FPSC is concerned, it is made strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules notified by the concerned Ministries/ Divisions/Departments. For equivalence/relevance of educational qualifications, FPSC depends on the advice of the HEC or other statutory regulatory bodies such as PEC, PMDC, PNC, etc. Since PCT is not a statutory body, it does not fall within this category. If notified recruitment rules require a BE degree, against it only candidates possessing a BE degree can be appointed. The technologists/ PCT may approach the users i.e. the departments concerned to provide for the qualification of B.Tech (Hons) degree in the recruitment rules of the respective posts, if it suits the end users. The department can re-evaluate the requirement of utilization of B.Tech (Hons) degree for various posts filled through FPSC and accordingly appropriate provisions in the rules for B.Tech (Hons) be created, if so desired. Till then the FPSC will continue to be guided by the PEC Act 1976 as amended from time to time, and decision of HEC and PEC of not accepting both the degrees as equivalent will be accepted. The contention of the Technologists that the B.Tech (Hons) degree has been accepted as equivalent to B.E. by the HEC has also not been proved or supported by the HEC itself. The HEC’s stance is that both the degrees have some commonalities and it is for the employer to determine their suitability for a particular job. The employers and the major stakeholders i.e. the MES, Railways, PWD etc have also categorically reiterated and supported the stance taken by the FPSC that the posts be filled strictly in accordance with the notified Recruitments Rules and in conformity with the qualifications specified therein.
8. After deliberations it was resorted that the Ministry of Science & Technology being the regulatory authority of the PEC be asked to regularise the B.Tech (Hons) degree programme by enactment in PEC Act or through a separate council/act. In case a separate council is created its probable clash on the interactive points with PEC should not be ignored. Till regularization of B.Tech programme and its proper monitoring at certain levels, the quality of its degree holders would remain in question.
(Sadiq Ali Anjum)
