1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and

5. M.M. Bhatti with M.S. Iqbal Chughtai for Respondents Nos.3 and

4. Date of hearing: 24th June, 1997. This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 2741 of 1997 and 2827 of 1997 as common questions of law are involved. 2.' The petitions were listed to consider only Misc. Applications filed by the respondent for vacation of the stay order. Since the respondents had filed their reply and they were duly represented, with consent of the learned counsel, the main cases have been heard and are being disposed of.

3. Each of the petitioners was an employee of the respondent University and on account of inefficiency and in-discipline, they were proceeded against and disciplinary proceedings culminated in the termination of their services. Each of them preferred appeals before the Syndicate of respondent University which was rejected. Consequently, they lodged these two constitutional petitions praying that the impugned orders of dismissal/termination be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and they be directed to be restored to their posts.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent-University has objected to the maintainability of the Constitutional petitions on the ground that the employment with the respondent-University is not governed by any Statutory Rules. He has relied on University of the Punjab Lahore and others v. Ch. Sardar Ali (1992 SCMR 109 and Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. and another 1994 SCMR32), to contend that in cases where employment is not governed b Statutory Rules; constitutional petition for restoration to the of ice is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to meet this objection. In fact, it has not been denied that the petitioners employment with the University is not statutory. He has, however, contended that at least in the case of Atta Muhammad (Writ Petition No.2827 of 1997), action was taken without prior hearing and his petition merits to succeed on this ground.

5. The issue is clinched on the strength of the two judgments relied by learned counsel for the respondent - University. Insofar as the question of prior notice is concerned, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for Atta Muhammad as he himself filed an appeal in the Syndicate and subsequently did not appear to prosecute the same on the ground that as he had initiated proceedings in the Labour Court, University was not competent to proceed in the matter on the basis of its own regulations. He even filed a writ petition in this Court restraining the Syndicate from proceeding with the matter which petition was dismissed. It will be seen that petitioner himself is responsible for non-hearing by the Syndicate. Even if he was legitimately filing petitions in Labour Court as well as in this court, he could have prepared before the Syndicate and argued the appeal or answered to the charges. He cannot now be permitted to turn around and say that he has been condemned unheard.

6. For the above reasons, these petitions are dismissed, without any order as to costs. H,B.T./S-166/L Petitions dismissed.