1997K36 (PLP)

Previous to this the petitioners had preferred Constitutional Petition No. D-1107 of 1995, which was disposed of on 17-4-1996 through an order of that date by another Division Bench. Such being a short one and passed upon consent, we would venture to reproduce here:- Learned counsel contends that the Vice-Chancellor, the respondents, vide Office Order, dated 17-8-1994 had constituted a committee to examine the petitions of the Laboratory Technicians/Laboratory Assistants including the petitioners, but the decision of the Committee is still awaited. Grievance of the learned counsel is that the said committee has not decided the matter. He states that he will be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondent to expedite the decision of the committee earlier constituted on the petitions filed by all the Laboratory Technicians/Laboratory Assistant, within a period of three months from the date of this order and in' such case he does not press this petition. Order accordingly. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to move fresh petition if so advised after three months. With these observations the petition stands disposed of with no order as to cost. " It would seem that the petitioners' grievance has remained unresolved in view of the somewhat uncertain state of affairs, which has ensued pursuant to the order reproduced above, However, the difficulty does not appear to be of a serious nature and, in fact, if the matter is broadly examined, the controversy can be set at rest. Thus, admittedly, there is a statute passed by the Senate of the N.E.D. University already available, which governs the situation pertaining to the claimed rights of the petitioners. The petitioners' case, in turn, is that such statute has been bypassed pursuant to the impugned Syndicate Resolution, which the petitioners have questioned here. Now a statute of the Senate is binding on the Syndicate, as would be clearly evident from a bare perusal of section 16(1) of the N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi Act, 1977, which for ready reference we reproduce below:-- "16.--(1) The syndicate shall be the executive body of the University and shall, 'subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, exercise general supervision over the affairs and the property of the University." On his part, Mr. Farooqi has urged that the process of amending the relevant statutes at the level of the Senate of the University is on and in course of time the existing statute may be appropriately modified. Even if that be so, the fact remains that the parties are to be governed, as at this moment; by the law, which applies to them and, what is more, that amended law, if any, shall have effect only prospectively without impinging upon the vested rights. In point of fact, as we have already observed, Mr. Farooqi himself has made us privy to an opinion, which he rendered to the University on the subject and though a privileged communication has allowed us to quote the same which we do hereunder:-- "In the circumstances of the case, as discussed, in the report of the Committee, and as raised by the affectees in their Constitution petition, the substantial question for decision is whether the Syndicate was by and conditions of service of non-teaching staff. The relevant law governing the above position is contained in section 48(1)(x), which provides that such terms and conditions of service are to be enforced by Statutes, which can be considered and passed by the Senate under section 14(x) of the Act. Section 48(1) (a) is subject to a proviso (proviso II) to the effect that such Statutes are required to be approved by the Chancellor before they can be made effective. As such, the decision contained in Syndicate Resolution No.91.8, is ineffective, being in excess of the Syndicate's jurisdiction. This was precisely the objection taken to the enforcement of the said provision, by the petitioners in their Constitution petition. The present position is contained in Item No.47 of Schedule II read with Appendix "A" referred to in Statute (9b), at page 386 of the Code, and the relevant items is at page 436 thereof. Being a Statute, it can be amended or modified by the same Authority which had passed the said Statute, i.e. the Senate. The Committee has reached a correct decision. The Syndicate Resolution is not lawful and in order to enforce its provision, it must be passed by the Senate and approved by the Chancellor. In the light of this legal position, I agree that it should be placed in the immediately next meeting of the Senate, which is to be held, according to its Rules Business (p.68 of the Code) twice a .year .or after six months. Till then, as and by way of stop-gap arrangement, the present position may continue and 'status quo' be maintained." In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned counsel has .taken eminently correct view of the legal position and statute quo as based on the current statute passed by the Senate shall have to be maintained by the University till a further or future law displaces the same. Such order as, reflected above, we pass by consent and dispose of the petition accordingly, leaving the University to adhere to the legal position already recapitulated. A.A./A-100/K Order accordingly.