2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

CH. MUHAMMAD YOUNIS, J.

Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Business Administration in the University Sub Campus D.G. Khan on contract basis which was extended from time to time. The petitioner claimed that he was entitled to be regularized in pursuance of decision of the Government but he was not regularized. The respondent-university advertised some posts for fresh appointment and the petitioner also applied for the post of Lecturer and appeared for the interview but he was not selected. Rather the respondents Nos.6 to 9 were recommended to be appointed against the advertised posts. So, the petitioner has challenged his non-selection for the post as well as the appointment of respondents Nos.6 to 9 on the grounds contained in the petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Selection Board was not constituted in accordance with the law as one of its member was a retired person. The petitioner had served as a Lecturer for more than 3 year's but he was not selected and his experience was not considered by the Selection Board being biased against the petitioner. The respondents Nos.6 to 9 were selected for appointment inspite of the fact that they had no experience and undue favour was shown to them. The selection of the said respondents was premeditated and predictable. The fundamental rights of the petitioner have been infringed so the petitioner through this constitutional petition has challenged the appointment of respondents Nos.6 to 9 and has sought the same to be declared illegal, without merit, mala fide, based on bias, favourtism and without lawful authority. It has further been prayed that the petitioner may be regularized as Lecturer as per policy of the Government.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent-university and the contesting respondents argued that the writ petition is not maintainable. The respondent-university has no statutory rules. The petitioner has raised some questions which relate to factual controversy which cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction. It has further been argued that the Selection Board was fully competent and the petitioner was estopped to challenge constitution thereof by his own conduct as he himself appeared before the said Board and he was interviewed by it. The selection of respondents Nos.6 to 9 was made on merits and the petitioner was placed much below on merits as compared to the respondents Nos. 6 to

9. The learned counsel further maintained that petitioner had got an alternate remedy by way of filing revision under section 11-A of Baha-ud-Din Zikriya University Act, 1975, so the writ petition merits dismissal on this score also. In support of their arguments, the learned counsel relied on 1999 SCMR 2381, 2005 PLC (C.S.) 599 [Lahore High Court], 1992 SCMR 1093 and PLD 2006 SC 602.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced from both the sides.

5. The petitioner has raised several questions which relate to factual controversy which cannot be gone into or dwelt upon by this Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. This Court is also not competent to substitute its findings for that of the Selection Board. There is nothing on the record to establish any discriminatory treatment towards the petitioner or any favourtism having been shown to respondents Nos.6 to

9. The question of bias or showing any undue favour to the respondents Nos.6 to 9 requires evidence to prove the same. This exercise cannot be carried out by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise the allegations of the petitioner are based on surmises and conjectures which are not supported by any document on the record. Reliance is placed on 2005 PLC (C.S.) 599 [Lahore High Court].

6. As regards the objection of the petitioner that the composition of the Selection Board was not in accordance with law, the petitioner himself acknowledged the said Board to be competent and he appeared before the said Board for interview. If he was selected by the Selection Board, he would have no objection to the formation of the said Board. Since he has not been selected, so he opted to find fault with the constitution thereof. The petitioner is estopped by his own conduct to challenge the constitution of the Selection Board. The Board compromised highly qualified members and their integrity and impartiality cannot be doubted in absence of any solid evidence/material on the record.

7. As regards non regularizing of the petitioner, admittedly he was a contract employee and had no vested right to be regularized.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent-university rightly pointed out that if the petitioner was aggrieved of the decision of the Selection Board, he could have availed alternate remedy available to him under section 11-A of Baha-ud-Din Zikriya University Act, 1975, by way of filing a revision before the Chancellor. So, on this score also the writ petition is not maintainable.

9. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition being devoid of any force and being not maintainable is hereby dismissed with costs, K.M.Z./S-45/L Petition dismissed.