The Court

 
Having been conversant with the papers and upon hearing the report recited by the presiding judge, and after argument and deliberation;
 
As the contestation has met the formal status.
 
The merits of the case, as derived from the contested ruling and all papers, are summarized as follows:
 
The respondent filed administrative case No. 42/2009 requesting a ruling to cancel the ministerial resolution No. 39 dated 11.7.1997, as approved by the cabinet in a regular session No. 20/1997 dated 11.6.1997, and also the ministerial resolution issued in the regular session of the cabinet No. 42/1998 dated 23.12.1998, including related consequences, the equalization of the license degree in law obtained by the respondent during the academic year 2007/2008. In explanation of his claim, the respondent stated that he is a police officer and wanted to study law by affiliation to the Arabian University of Beirut. Therefore he applied to the Ministry of Higher Education for approval. However, he was told that such approvals are on hold. He continued his studies and obtained the license of law in 2007/2008 from the said university. Subsequently he applied to the committee of degree equalization requesting the equalization of his degree, but such application was declined. When he filed a grievance, this was also rejected. Therefore, he filed a claim. The court ruled for non-competence with regard to the first two demands. Regarding the third demand, the court accepted the case in form and declined the subject. He filed an appeal by virtue of case No. 47/2010. On 25.7.2010 the court issued a judgment for the modification of the appealed ruling. Thus the court has accepted the case in form and cancelled the resolution of the degree equalization committee, to wit: declining to equalize the degree of law obtained by the appellant from the Arabian University of Beirut in 2007/2008 as a first-class university degree. The court rejected all other demands of the appellant.
 
The contestants have challenged this ruling by cassation. Upon presentation of the contestation before this court in the counseling room, a hearing session was set. Whereas the contestants challenged the contested ruling, claiming that it violated and misapplied the law. They explained that the contested ruling declined to implement the restrictions and conditions enacted by the council of ministers’ resolution No. (42) of 1998 in the regular session dated 23.12.1998 for the equalization of first-class university degrees, including the acquisition of approval from the employer and the competent educational authority for enrollment at Arab and foreign universities and institutes. The said resolution provided that such study shall not be on an affiliation basis with effect from 29.12.1998. However, the contested judgment ruled for the equalization of the law degree obtained by the respondent after the aforesaid date from the Arabian university of Beirut through affiliation, and without the acquisition of prior approval from the competent education authority, a matter which leads to the disgrace of the contested ruling and renders cassation as inevitable.
 
Whereas such challenge is proper, since the provision of Article 143 of the permanent constitution of Qatar dated 8.6.2004 provided that “All provisions designated by the laws and regulations before the enforcement of this constitution remain valid and in effect, unless modified in accordance with the provisions hereof. The enforcement of the constitution shall not prejudice the provisions of the international conventions and treaties wherein the state of Qatar is a party”, indicates that all provisions designated by the laws and regulations issued before the enforcement of this constitution remain valid and in effect. Nevertheless, such provisions may be rescinded or modified in accordance with the rules and procedures designated in this constitution. As such, it is not disputed by the litigants that the resolution of the council of ministers No. (42) of 1998, issued on 23.12.1998 has obligated prior approval by the concerned educational entity of the state on the equalization of any first-class degree from a foreign university or institute, and that such shall not be through affiliation. This means that in case either of the two aforesaid conditions is missing, the concerned educational entity of the state may reject the said degree. This shall not be prejudiced by the statement that this shall violate the principle of equal opportunity and equality among citizens, as designated in Articles 19, 34 and 35 of the permanent constitution, since this will denote a type of judicial control over the constitutionality of laws and regulations, which the Constitution, as provided in Article 140 thereof, has vested to the law, namely, to determine the competent judicial entities to settle disputes related to the constitutionality of laws, and to determine functions thereof, methods of contestation and procedures before the same, and the consequences of rulings following the constitutionality. Based on this mandate, the law of the Constitutional Court has been issued under No. (12) of 2008, determining the exclusive functions thereof and excluding functions not related to the jurisdiction thereof. The law has vested thereon, pursuant to Article 12 thereof, the sole function of the constitutional control of laws and regulations, thus preventing any other entity from competing or contending for such role and detailing techniques and mechanisms for such control. Based on the foregoing, the courts are not permitted to engage in any monitoring of prevailing laws and regulations.
 
Therefore, courts shall not abstain from applying any of the prevailing laws and regulations, claiming that they are unconstitutional. As such, since the contested ruling declined to implement the purport of the council of ministers resolution no. (42) of 1998, claiming that the content of the aforesaid Articles 19, 34 and 35 of the permanent constitution of the state shall be implemented. Accordingly, the contested ruling judged for the equalization of the respondent’s university degree to first-class university degree from a foreign university, through affiliation and without the prior approval of the competent educational authority. Therefore the contested ruling has violated the aforesaid resolution of the cabinet and consequently it is deemed disgraced and capable of cassation.
 
Based on the foregoing, since the issue is subject to settlement, the appeal becomes baseless and therefore the appealed ruling is worthy of support.
 
Accordingly, the court has ruled for cassation of the contested ruling and obligated the respondent to bear the costs. The court further has ruled in case of appeal no. 47/2010/ administrative by declining the appeal and supporting the appealed ruling, while obligating the appellant to bear the costs.