2013 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI, J.

Petitioner, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, by way of filing instant writ petition, with the following prayer:

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

(a) Declare the impugned appointments and the respective notifications that is Notification No.Estab.2(02)/2012-IIU-3509 dated 4-11-2011 and Notification No.Estab.2-9509/ 20124-IIU-3532 dated 18-11-2011 to be illegal and void ab initio and set them aside; (b) Direct respondents Nos.2 and 3 to follow the recruitment of different posts at respondent No.1 as advertised under the advertisement of June 2011; and (c) Direct respondents Nos.4 and 5 to return all the benefits, including their salaries and perks, etc., given to them during their impugned Appointments. The petitioner may also be awarded costs of this writ."

2. Grievance of petitioners is that respondent University advertised the posts of Professor, Assistant Professor and Lecturers in June, 2011 and process of filling of these posts were in progress when with mala fide intentions and ulterior motives, respondents Nos.4 and 5 were appointed as Director, (BPS-21) and Professor (BPS-21) respectively on contract/ad hoc basis, despite the fact that they did not apply for the said posts in pursuance to the advertisement, for want of requisite qualification, therefore, appointments of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 may be declared as illegal and void ab initio.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners argued that respondents Nos.4 and 5 neither applied for their respective posts in pursuance to the advertisement nor they have requisite qualification but in spite of that they were appointed on contract/ad hoc basis. Learned counsel further argued that impugned appointments have been made in a clandestine and non transparent manner in violation of procedure. The impugned appointments are against the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Suo Motu Case No.4 of 2010 PLD 2011 SC

963. The impugned appointments have illegitimate and illegal aim of depriving the petitioner and other regular officers of respondent No.1, for personal gains of only chosen persons, at the costs of petitioners. Learned counsel further added that impugned appointments are in violation of the declared merit policy of respondent No.1; therefore, in the interest of justice the same may be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submitted that petitioners have no locus standi to file the instant petition. Learned counsel further submitted that University is an autonomous body having non statutory rules; therefore, writ petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel added that impugned appointments have been made under the provisions of International Islamic University Ordinance, 1985, hence writ petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel further added that section 5 of International Islamic University Statutes 2006 empowers the University Board to create institutions, academies etc. and to appointment respondents are duly qualified having vast experience in their respective fields and their appointments have been made under University Ordinance.

5. I have heard the learned counsel at great length and perused the documents annexed with the pleadings.

6. It is amazing to note that through an advertisement, application for appointment of Professors, Assistant Professors and Lecturers were invited in the month of June, 2011, period of more than one calendar year has been consumed but no decisive step has been taken as yet. This type of lethargic approach, brings complication, resultantly, eyebrows are raised, questions are asked and allegations of discrimination are levelled. When this Court enquired from the learned counsel for the respondents that through which process, respondent No.4 has been inducted? Very amazing stance has been taken that in the entire Pakistan no person possesses the qualification equal to respondent No.4. When asked that how without advertising the post, University authorities would know that any other person possess the required qualification or not? Learned counsel representing respondents submitted that University Authority is certain about it. It is being observed with great concern that in the Educational Institutions, more particularly which are parting legal education, affairs are being run without adhering to the provisions of law, principles of natural justice and constitutional requirements. Even for the contract employment, advertisement of post is not only essential but in order to ensure the transparency and bring competitive process, it is mandatory, therefore, I am fully convinced that notwithstanding the educational qualification of respondent No.4, he has been inducted through questionable process, which cannot be accorded approval by this court.

7. As far as case of respondent No.5 is concerned, it is also unique in a sense that post against which he has been appointed was advertised, a number of candidates applied and process has not been completed since June, 2012. He has been appointed on ad hoc basis without drawing any reasonable distinction between him and other candidates who applied against the respective post. I am not convinced that any person can be extended favour on the ground that he is inevitable or distinction holder. These aspects can be examined by the authority once the process with full transparency concludes. The stance of the University Authority of obliging respondent No.5 is not only dubious but unprecedented as well which is in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan as other equally placed candidates, waiting appointment since June, 2011 have been discriminated.

8. In this view of the matter, orders of the appointment of respondents Nos.4 and 5 as contract/ad hoc Professor are declared as illegal, unconstitutional, void which are set aside. University Authorities may advertise the post, evolve the competitive process and then decide about the eligibility of any candidate, including respondent No.4, if he opts to apply.

9. University Authorities must complete the process of regular appointments within 2 months from the receipt of instant order and after completion of process; if any post is required to be re-advertised then same exercise may be carried out. KMZ/150/Isl. Petition allowed.