1996 PLP 557 (CLC)

4. The learned counsel for other respondents adopted the arguments of learned counsel for respondents Nos.l to 3, while the learned counsel for the petitioner summing up the arguments submitted that since para. 11 creates an exception, the same is to be construed strictly. It is added that rule of constructions is that the Statute should be read as one whole organic body. The arguments are concluded with the submission that the case of Sardar Ali (1992 SCMR 1093) cited by the learned counsel for the respondents to urge that the writ petition is incompetent is not applicable to the facts of the present case. On the other hand, it was clearly held by this Court in the judgment reported as Prof. Dr. Muhammad Belal Sukhera v. Islamia University, Bahawalpur through Vice‑Chancellor and 6 others (PLD 1993 Lahore 474) that the writ was competent, it was accepted.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record as well as the relevant provisions of the University rules, regulations and the precedents. The whole case revolves around the interpretation of para

11. The same reads as under:‑‑ "RELAXATION

11. Any of these statutes, for reasons to be recorded in writing, may be relaxed in special cases, if the Syndicate is satisfied that a strict application of such Statutes would cause under hardship to an individual teacher or adversely affect the interests of the University: Provided that whenever such relaxation involves a question on which consultation with Selection Board is necessary, the Board shall be consulted before the relaxation is made. " The other relevant provisions of this Statute are 'section/para. 2 definitions of Teacher and University, reading as under:‑‑ " Teacher: means Professors, Associate Professors and Lecturers or any other person imparting instruction in a Faculty of Teaching Department of the University and recognized as a teacher by the Syndicate. " "University: means the Islamia University, Bahawalpur. " It is clear from the bare reading of para. 11 that it deals with relaxation of all sorts, i.e., age, qualification, length of experience etc. Relaxation is to be granted for reasons to be recorded in writing in special cases, if the Syndicate is IA satisfied that‑‑ (1) strict application of Statute would cause undue hardship to an individual teacher; or (II) it would adversely affect the interests of the University. This power of the Syndicate is subject to the proviso to the effect that if relaxation involves a question on which consultation of the Selection Board is necessary then the Board shall be consulted before the relaxation is made. While the matters in respect of which consultation of the Selection Board is essential have been tabulated in the Explanation I, which are the relaxation in respect of age, qualification and experience etc. Now, the question which arises for determination is whether respondent No.6 has been allowed relaxation in age as teacher or in the interest of the University. The perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Board show that the relaxation was recommended it' the interest of the University. The relevant portion reads as follows:‑‑ This recommendation was accepted by the Syndicate, therefore the action of the respondents‑University is fully covered by the latter part of para.

11. The argument that it only applies to the teachers already on the pay roll of the University is absolutely misconceived as it loses sight of last part of the para. which has been underlined by me to make it prominent. The leered counsel when confronted with this position argued that the relaxation was in the interest of respondent No.6 and not of the University because of University it was immaterial, who is appointed. The argument is without any substance, as the interest of the University is that it must have the best available teachers on its pay roll. The University'‑was justified to zealously guard this interest. The anxiety of the University to have the best staff is fully justified. This is not all. It was clearly provided in the advertisement inviting applications that upper age limit may be relaxed in exceptional cases.

6. The other ground of attack to the impugned order is that the Syndicate could not relax the upper age of respondent No.6 without consultation of the Selection Board. The argument was addressed in ignorance of the facts on record. In this case, as already noted, the Selection Board recommended relaxation, therefore, the order of the Syndicate is legal and valid. It is relevant to mention here that the Selection Board was broad based and it included representatives, the Member, Punjab Public Service Commission, and the Vice- Chancellor of Quaid‑i‑Azam University, Islamabad.

7. The petitioner has failed to make out a case of violation of any statutory rules, therefore, she cannot maintain the Constitutional petition. The upshot of the above discussions is that this has no merit and is dismissed. A.A./H‑158/L Petition dismissed