1996 PLP 49 (MLD)

Through this Constitutional petition, it has been prayed that a writ of mandamus may be issued to respondent No.l for taking immediate action to complete the Syndicate, the Selection Board and other allied bodies of the Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan. It has been further prayed that respondent No.l may be restrained to exercise the powers under section 16(3) of the Bahauddin Zakariya University Act, 1975 pending decision of the writ petition. It has also been prayed that respondent No.l may also be restrained to hold any meeting of the Syndicate or the Selection Board before completing the aforesaid bodies.

2. The main thrust of learned counsel for the petitioner is that without making any effort to constitute or complete the legal bodies/authorities of the University, respondent No.l is invoking his powers under section 16(3) of the Bahauddin Zakariya University Act, 1975 to settle the old scores with the petitioners and some others who belong to the opposite group.

3. Elaborating his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.l passed illegal orders whereby petitioner No.l was transferred from the Department of Business /Administration to the Department of Statistics. Besides, the services of the petitioner and Dr. Muhammad Akram Chaudhry were terminated. The aforesaid orders have been challenged before this Court in various writ petitions, for example Writ Petitions NosA763, 1239, 1247, 2003 and 2004 of 1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that although the efforts were made to bring the irregularities committed by respondent No.l to the notice of the higher authorities but the same did not fructify.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner failed to avail of the remedy provided under section 11‑A of the B.Z.U. Act, 1975 and that Prof. Dr. Muhammad Ishaque Akhtar was appointed as Vice Chancellor of the said University on 20‑10‑1994 when almost all the major Authorities/Bodies of the University viz. the Syndicate, the Selection Board, the Academic Council and the Affiliation Committee having completed their terms were non‑existent. Respondent No.l did not sit back. He, instead, made his best efforts to constitute the bodies. To great extent, he succeeded, with the result that the Academic Council and the Affiliation Committee already stand re‑constituted. So far as the re‑constitution of the Syndicate was concerned, he made a request to the Speaker Punjab Provincial Assembly to nominate one MPA. Responding to the request, the Provincial. Assembly; vide its letter dated 22‑11‑1994 (Annexure R‑II) informed that Mr. Muhammad Ishaque Bucha, MPA will continue to be the member of the Syndicate of the Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan till such time he holds the office of MPA. In response to the request made by respondent No.l, the Honourable Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, Lahore has been pleased to nominate his Lordship Mr. Justice Munir A. Sheikh as the member of the Syndicate. Two men of eminence, Prof. Dr. Muhammad Bilal Sukhera, Vice‑Chancellor, Islamia University, Bahawalpur and Dr. Iftikhar Ali Raja, Prof. of Neuro surgery, King Edward Medical College, Lahore, have been selected as members of the Selection Board. The Chairman, University Grants Commission, Islamabad, has been reminded that one nominee of its Commissioner maybe recommended for the membership of the Syndicate. Similarly, the Secretary, Punjab Education Department, Lahore was also requested for approval of the Chancellor for nominating one member of the Affiliated colleges vide letter dated 27‑11‑1994 (Annexure R‑IX). In response to it, Prof. Muhammad Afzal Lodhi, Principal Government Degree College, D.G. Khan has been nominated as member of the Syndicate.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents stated at the Bar that the Selection Board has been constituted and a notification has been issued for the same purpose and its meeting has already been convened for 29/30‑6‑1995.

6. From the resume of the above facts, it is clear that respondent No.l has taken earnest steps to complete the necessary bodies of the University. In order to complete the statutory bodies, respondent No.l was left with no other alternative remedy except to exercise the powers under section 16(3) of the Bahauddin Zakariya University Act, 1975. If he is restrained to exercise these powers, it shall be tantamount to thwart the efforts made by respondent No.l to constitute them. Further in that situation the only casualty will be general efficiency and good order of the University.

7. Admittedly, the petitioners have not availed of the remedy,provided under section 11‑A of the Bahauddin Zakariya University Act, 1975. It has neither been averred in the writ petition nor argued before the Court that the Chancellor refused to pass any order on the alleged representation made by the petitioners. It has also not been alleged that the Chancellor was reluctant to pass any order and, therefore, it was deemed proper to file the writ petition. It was not the case of the petitioner that the Chancellor was, in any manner, inimical to the present petitioners or was in league with the Vice‑Chancellor and for that reasons, the petitioners did not consider section 11‑A of the said Act as an adequate remedy. Resultantly, this petition being without any merit, is hereby dismissed. AA./H‑161/L Petition dismissed