1999 PLP 2381 (SCMR)

Agha,Taj Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents Date of hearing: 21st January, 1999 Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 20-10-1998, passed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in I.-C.A. No.877 of 1998, which had arisen out of Writ Petition No.814 of 1998, dismissing the same, as being not maintainable.

2. This petition is barred by 23 days from the decision rendered in the Constitutional petition. When faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Division Bench was not right in holding that the Intra Court Appeal was not maintainable in view of the proviso to sub section (2) of section 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, inasmuch as under section 11-A of the Universities of Punjab Act, 1973, no revision was available ag4inst the orders passed by the Chancellor himself.

3. The contention is devoid of any force. The petitioner sought the following reliefs in the Constitutional petition:-- "-(i) Compliance of order dated 3-6-1991 of the V.C. granting personal scale in BPS-14 to the petitioner. (ii) Cancellation of transfer order dated 8-1-1996, and (iii) Promotion of the petitioner as E.O. being only eligible candidate for promotion as such."

4. As to relief (i) above, if the subordinate authorities were not complying with the order of the Vice-Chancellor, dated 3-6-1991, the petitioner could have approached the Chancellor for the redress of his grievance in that behalf. As regards his plea relating to cancellation of transfer order, dated 8-1-1996, suffice it to say that the petitioner had no vested right for holding a post at a particular station. Clearly, in exigencies of service he could be transferred from one place to another. As regards the last prayer that he be promoted as Estate Officer, being only eligible candidate for promotion, the same is again misconceived, inasmuch as the petitioner has no vested right to be promoted to a particular post to be filled in on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness as provided under the rules. The plea raised by the petitioner that he was only eligible candidate for promotion is a matter necessitating inquiry into the case which could not be gone into either in the constitutional petition or before this Court in these proceedings. The High Court was also right in holding that the employees of the Universities were neither holders of statutory posts nor their terms and conditions were governed by statutory rules, with the result that the Constitutional petition was not maintainable. Reliance was rightly placed on the case of University of the Punjab and 2 others. v. Sardar Ali (1992 SCMR 1093) and Khalid Hussain v. Chancellor (Governor of Punjab) and others NLR 1995 CLJ 219.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material on record, we are inclined to hold that the L-C.A. was not maintainable inasmuch as the original order was susceptible of examination in revision as contemplated by section 11-A of the Universities of Punjab Act, 1973. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of limitation, and leave declined. Q.M.H./I-28/S' Leave to appeal refused.