2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Dr. ZAKRIYA TARIQ Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others
| Citation | 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Syed Zahid Hussain, J |
| Parties | Dr. ZAKRIYA TARIQ Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Syed Zahid Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Dr. ZAKRIYA TARIQ Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Talat Farooq Sh. for Appellant.
- Fazal‑i‑Miran Chohan Addl. A.‑G. for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
- Sh. Shahid Waheed for Respondent No.2.
- Khurram Latif Khan Khosa for Respondent No.4.
- Date of hearing: 25th May, 2004.
- 2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the power of appointment vested only in the University of Lahore who had to fill the vacancy by following the procedure laid down by the Ordinance It is contended that the selection process envisaged by the Ordinance, in particular clause 7 of rule 6 of Schedule to section 41 thereof has been violated in making such an appointment. In order to show that the petition is competent before this Court and that such an appointment/posting, which according to the petitioner is contrary to law, the Court can interfere, reference has been made to Dr. Imtiaz Elahi Piracha v. Government of Punjab and others (2004 PLC (C.S.) 705), Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal and others v. The Honourable Lahore. High Court, Lahore and others (1997 SCMR 1043), Capt: (Recd.) Muhammad Naseem Hijazi v. Province of Punjab through Secretary, Housing and Physical Planning and 2 others (2000 SCMR 1720), Rana Habib‑ur‑Rehman Khan Advocate v. Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary civil Secretarial. Lahore and 4 others (2001 PLC (C.S.) 450), Abdul Bashir and 9 other, v. Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat Quetta and 3 others (2001 PLC (C.S.) 771), Dr. Muhammad Azhar v Dr. Tariq Mahmood Malik and 2 others (2002 PLC (C.S.) 57) and Dr Farhat Saleemi v. Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary Secretariat, Lahore and 3 others (2003 PLC (C.S.) 104).
- 3. The report and comments have been submitted by the respondents. The petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the University of Education with reference to notification dated 26‑4‑2004 that the posting of respondent No.4 was a "provisional" arrangement, which was subject to the conditions mentioned therein, including the approval of the Syndicate. It is contended that the posting of respondent No.4 was consistent with the decision of the Syndicate taken in its 4th meeting of 4‑10‑2003, circulated on 14‑10‑2003, which envisages that "if there was any proposal for the placement of a staff at the University of Education, Lahore from the Government of the Punjab, it would be presented to the Syndicate for its consideration". It is thus contended that such a proposal could be made by the Government of Punjab which was, however, subject to the approval of the Syndicate of the University that is why the posting of respondent No.4 was made provisionally and is yet to be finalized on due consideration by the Syndicate. The learned Additional Advocate General Punjab and the learned counsel for respondent No.4 have also adopted a similar stance in the matter. According to them in such circumstances the writ petition was incompetent and premature.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) University of Lahore Ordinance (LXI of 2002)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑Ss.20 & 41, Sched., R.6(7)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Petitioner was desirous, of being appointed for a post lying vacant with the University, however, Government appointed the respondent for the same‑‑‑Grievance of the petitioner in Constitutional petition was that the power of appointment vested only with the University who was supposed to fill the vacancy by following the procedure laid down in University of Lahore Ordinance, 2002, but on the contrary selection process envisaged by the Ordinance under Cl.7 of R.6 of Schedule to S.41 was violated‑‑‑Objection of the University was that the petition of the petitioner was premature and incompetent because the posting of the respondent was a provisional arrangement which was subject to certain conditions including the approval of Syndicate as provided for in the Ordinance‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Orders and notifications for the appointment of the respondent left no doubt that it was merely a provisional arrangement subject to the approval of the Syndicate‑‑‑Power to make such appointment and posting fell within the powers and duties of Syndicate provided under S.20 of the Ordinance‑‑‑Since, the matter with regard to appointment was yet to be finalized by the Syndicate, no interference was required under Constitutional jurisdiction by the High Court‑‑‑Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. (b) Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art.114‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition ‑‑‑Estoppel, principle of‑‑‑Applicability‑‑‑Where the petitioner had herself made an application and requested for appointment to a certain post and consideration of her case by the Government, she was not entitled to raise a plea in the Constitutional petition that the Government had nothing to do with the matter and it was the University alone, which could have initiated the process and made the appointment.
Judgment & Decree
April 26, 2004 Kindly refer to the Services and General Administration Department, Government of the Punjab letter No.S.O. (E‑1), 1‑34/2001 dated April 24, 2004. Dr. Mrs. Zamurrad Salman, Professor, Principal Government Degree College, Baghbanpura, Lahore (BS‑20), is provisionally allowed to join Professor in (BS‑20) at Government College of Education (W), Lahore on the following conditions subject to the final decision of the Syndicate:‑‑
1. The appointment will be subject to the approval of the Syndicate.
2. Site will draw normal pay and allowances and will not claim any deputation pay and allowances etc.
3. That offer will not be construed as the commitment on behalf of the University of Education for the appointment unless it is approve, by the Syndicate. Lt. Col (Retd.) Muhammad Rafique Addl. Dir (Coord)" On 6‑5‑2004 another Notification was issued by the University that:‑ NOTIFICATION No. UE/Add Dir (Coord)/1318.‑‑‑In exercise of powers vested in him under subsection (3), section 14, University of Education, Lahore Ordinance 2002, the Vice‑Chancellor, University of Education, Lahore is pleased to appoint Dr. Mrs. Zamurrad Salman, to act for the Principal of University College of Education (W), Lahore till further orders. Lt. Col. (Retd) (Muhammad Rafique) Additional Director (Coord)" (Emphasis supplied by underlining the relevant portions). It all goes to show the transitory nature of posting of respondent No.4. which was subject to NOC by the University. The University made it "subject to the approval of the Syndicate" and that the "offer will not be construed as the commitment on behalf of the University of Education for the appointment unless it is approved by the Syndicate". The notification of 6‑5‑2004 further restricted the scope of posting that it was made "till further orders". The tenor of these orders and notifications leave no doubt whatsoever that it is merely a provisional arrangement. There is no cavil that the power to make such appointment and posting falls within the powers and duties of the Syndicate in view of section 20 of the Ordinance. Since the matter is yet to be considered and decided by the high‑powered body in the University i.e. the Syndicate comprising a Judge of this Court, there is no doubt left that the matter will receive due consideration by such a body who will take decision consistent with the law obtaining on the subject. In such milieu, I am not inclined to interfere with the matter in writ jurisdiction. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Government of Punjab had nothing to do with the matter and it was the University alone, which could have initiated the process and made the appointment, suffice it to observe that the petitioner herself had made an application and requested for such a posting and consideration of her case by the Government of Punjab. It would not entitle her to raise any such plea, as in writ jurisdiction the conduct of the petitioner assumes much relevance. Moreover the University acted in accord with the Syndicate decision dated 14‑10‑2003 in receiving such a request of the Government of Punjab. I am informed that the Syndicate meeting is scheduled to be held in the near future. It is hoped and expected that this matter will be considered and decided by the Syndicate in the forthcoming meeting and in case any of the parties makes representation, the same will receive its due consideration in accordance with law. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed as misconceived, in view of the observations made above. No order as to costs. M.A.W./Z‑23/L Petition dismissed.