P L D 1993 Lahore 474 (PLP)

The petitioner in this Constitutional petition is Professor and Dean Faculty of Science, Islamia University, Bahawalpur. The facts of the case, concisely stated, leading to this petition are that the Vice-Chancellor, Islamia University, Bahawalpur, respondent No.2 - herein, ostensibly exercising delegated powers of the Chancellor's Committee under section 50 of the Islamia Univeristy Bahawalpur Act, 1975 (to be referred as Act) made ad hoc appointments W ' two Professors; six Associate Professors; three Assistant Professors and thirteen Lecturers. These ad hoc appointments were subsequently validated by the Vice-Chancellor by issuing Notification No.9585/Estt. 1, dated the 12th of November, 1992 stating that the appointments shall be deemed to have been made under section 15 (3) of the Act. Here I may remark that the Vice-Chancellor was previously too pitted against some of the Professors of the University in litigation before the High Court wherein vires of the action of the Vice-Chancellor under section 50 of the Act were examined in Intra-Court Appeals No. 15, 16 and 17 of 1992 and vide judgment dated the 11th of November, 1992 the order of delegation of powers dated the 28th of February, 1991 under section 50 of the Act was declared a dead order. This judgment has been challenged in the Supreme Court and the matter is sub judice. Reverting to the facts of the case I find that election of 4 seats of the Syndicate by and from amongst the different categories of the University teachers was intended to be held under section 24(i)(ix) of the Act. The Returning Officer issued preliminary Electoral Rolls to each category of teachers and invited objections for inclusion of the names in and exclusion from the rolls. The petitioner alongwith two others filed the 'objections for exclusion of some of the names of the Professors, Assistant Professors and Lecturers, . detailed in the petition, from the preliminary electoral college. The objection, however, was rejected by the Returning Officer, Registrar of the University, respondent No. 3 herein. The objectors including the petitioner aggrieved by the decision dated the 9th of October, 1992 filed revision under section 7 of the Act before the Revision Committee which was chaired by Dr. Khalid Javid Makhdoom whose entry in the electoral college was objected to by the petitioner. The revision was expectedly rejected. The election for the seats of Syndicate took place on the 7th of November, 1992. Dr. Javaid Akhtar Cheema returned as elect and also Dr. Muhammad Shafique Khan and Mr. Makshoof Athar. The Vice-Chancellor in his wisdom thought that the Syndicate had been formed and, therefore, he held the meeting for the 21st . of November, 1992 and subsequently on the 10th of January, 1993. Three days before, the petitioner had already riled the present petitioner but he had to file the amended petition in view of the decisions having, been taken in pursuance of the said meeting. According to the petitioner several decisions violating the provisions of the Act and also jeopardizing the rights of various teachers including the petitioner were made. The petitioner has sought it to be declared in this Constitutional petition that the electoral college notified by the notification No. 2075 dated the 26th of October, 1992 was constituted illegally and so was the election to the Syndicate and further that the decisions made in the meeting of the' improperly constituted syndicate were also without lawful authority and of no legal effect. He also sought relief that the Vice-Chancellor be restrained from convening any further meeting of the Syndicate and respondents No. 4 to 7 be restrained from attending any such meeting of the Syndicate.

2. Para-wise comments on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 were submitted wherein all the- impugned actions were defended, questioning the petitioner's locus standi to file the writ petition.

3. The Vice-Chancellor has justified the ad hoc appointments which is the power of Syndicate under section 25 of the Act. And he has attempted to justify the appointments made by him under emergency powers under section 15(3) of the Act.

4. The High Court in Intra ' -Court Appeal had held this provision of law does not empower him to exercise any function allocated to the Syndicate. Even otherwise scope of provisions of section 15(3) is being extended by the Vice-Chancellor from its legitimate limits and scope and in order to acquire and usurp powers of Syndicate in the name of emergency which is colourable exercise of authority not vested in him. The ad hoc appointments of two Professors; six Associate Professors; three Assistant Professors and thirteen Lecturers, as detailed in Paragraph No.3 of the Writ Petition, made by the Vice-Chancellor further constituted electoral college of the Syndicate. The new appointees elected the Syndicate and from that Syndicate which was elected by these appointees, he got approved their appointments. - Since ad hoc appointments were not valid the constitution of electoral college by them had little legal efficacy and the superstructure based on this void act, therefore, cannot stand and has to fall with the void act itself.

5. The petitioner has locus standi to maintain the petition because not for these appointments he would have been member of the electoral college and would have voted for election of Syndicate. Further illegally constituted syndicate. had passed certain orders prejudicial to the interest of some of the teachers, including the petitioner. For instance the petitioner was appointed Chairman of the Department of Physics for the period of three years 1e. from 24-10-1991 to 23-10-1994 vide Notification No.1263-99/Est-I dated the 13th of February, 1992 but the period was reduced to two years and for that period in his place Dr. Barkat Ali Shafique, was appointed. The petitioner, therefore could maintain that he had been dealt with in relation to his service matter as above mentioned to his prejudice. The petitioner, therefore, was an "aggrieved party' within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution. Karachi High Court had laid down in Muntizina Committee, A]-Mustafa Colony (Regd.) Karachi and 3 others v. Director, Katchi Abadis, Sindh and 5 others (PLD 1992 Karachi 54) that aggrieved person would not necessarily mean a person having a strict legal right, even a person who was deprived .of a benefit, privilege etc. by an illegal act or omission, could be considered as an aggrieved person. Moreover, where a case involved question of true interpretation and correct application of statutory rules, Constitutional jurisdiction would be available, as was ruled in Noor Muhammad v. Member (Revenue Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 5 others 1988 CLC 154.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents. has contended that all the rules, regulations and statutes of the University are not statutory rules and the petition was not competent as ruled by the Supreme Court in its latest decision University of the Punjab, Lahore v. Ch. Sardar Ali (1992 SCMR 1093). This rule cannot be applied to the facts of this case because here the petitioner has challenged very constitution of the electoral college /roll, election of the Senate by the said electoral college and certain orders passed adverse to his interest by the Senate.

7. The other objection of the learned counsel for the respondents is that if any irregularity was committed in the elections etc., the same stood cured under section 47 of the Act. This provision of law cannot be interpreted to hold that if the very constitution of a body or authority which under law was to take decisions was illegal and void, the acts done by it would be deemed to have been validated by this provision of law. Had electoral college been properly constituted and on the basis thereof election of Syndicate had taken place, and then if in the meeting of that Syndicate some unauthorised person had participated or a seat in the Syndicate had fallen vacant, then such irregularity would not have invalidated the decision of the Syndicate, if otherwise the quorum was complete.

8. Before parting with the judgment I must express my dismay over the conduct of the Vice-Chancellor which was never equalled by the exhalted position he occupies. Being head of a great seat of learning, he ought to have watched that the acts done by him or his subordinates were in accordance with Islamic principles of Adl-o-Ahsaan. In the instant case it was nowhere discernible that the Vice-Chancellor was keen to conduct the affairs of the University in consonance with the law, rules, principles of justice, equity, good conscience and fair-play.

9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the ad hoc appointments, the constitution of the electoral college/roll and as a consequence thereof the election of Syndicate on the said electoral college and in the result all the acts done and decisions taken by the Syndicate including the regularization of ad hoc appointees was without lawful authority and of no legal effect and is hereby quashed. to view of glaring disregard of rules, fair play, I hereby burden the Vice-Chancellar with costs of the petition. AA./M-1012/L Petition accepted