PLC(CS) 2008

2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

TALLAT MEHMOOD Versus BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN through Vice-Chancellor and 2 others

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore High Court
Decided Date
Writ Petition No.1841 of 2008, decided on 6th May, 2008.
Honorable Judges
Kazim Ali Malik, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Lahore High Court
Bench Members Kazim Ali Malik, J
Parties TALLAT MEHMOOD Versus BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN through Vice-Chancellor and 2 others
Primary Law Bahauddin Zakaria University Act (III of 1975)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Bahauddin Zakaria University Act (III of 1975) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Kazim Ali Malik, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (TALLAT MEHMOOD Versus BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN through Vice-Chancellor and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Bahauddin Zakaria University Act (III of 1975)

Representation

  • Khurshid Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 16(3)

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199

Constitutional petition

Promotion

Withdrawal of order of promotion

Petitioner was employed in University as Sub-Engineer

Vice-Chancellor, in anticipation of approval of Syndicate/Chancellor, promoted petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer in basic pay scale 17, with the clarification that in case said promotion was not approved by the Syndicate/Chancellor, petitioner would be reverted to his original post of Sub-Engineer

Subsequently, Vice-Chancellor vide office order, in exercise of power vested in him under S.16(3) of Bahauddin Zakaria University Act, 1975 promoted petitioner as University Engineer on officiating basis subject to approval of the Chancellor

Subsequently Vice-Chancellor/ on behalf of Syndicate, vide impugned order withdrew said order of promotion on officiating basis and reverted petitioner to his original official position of Assistant Engineer on account of his unsatisfactory service record

Validity

Petitioner had not been promoted as University Engineer on regular basis and vide office order his promotion was on officiating basis subject to approval of the Syndicate

Petitioner having never been promoted as University Engineer, impugned order by means of which he was restored to his original position, should not have hurt the petitioner

Mere fact that the petitioner was promoted on officiating basis subject to approval of the Authority, would not create any right of promotion in his favour

Further more the petitioner was proceeded against on the charge of misconduct

Reasons which weighed with the Vice-Chancellor while passing the impugned order were not whimsical or arbitrary

Record, revealed that the petitioner misused his official position, which was awarded to him on officiating basis

Impugned order of Vice-Chancellor, in circumstances, was not open to exception on any ground.

Judgment & Decree

KAZIM ALI MALIK, J.

Tallat Mahmood, petitioner, secured employment in respondent-University as Sub-Engineer vide office order dated 31-1-1990. The respondent/Vice-Chancellor in anticipation of approval of the Syndicate/Chancellor promoted the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer in basic pay scale 17, however, with the clarification that in case the promotion was not approved by the Syndicate/ Chancellor, he would be reverted to his original post of Sub-Engineer. The Chancellor approved the promotion in anticipation vide office order dated 11-12-1993 and in this way the petitioner held the position of Assistant Engineer. Vide office order dated 30-12-2002 the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University in exercise of powers vested in him under section 16(3) of Bahauddin Zakaria University Act, 1975 promoted Tallat Mahmood, Assistant Engineering as University Engineer on officiating basis subject to approval of the Chancellor. Vide office order dated 3-4-2008 the Vice-Chancellor on behalf of the Syndicate withdrew the said order of promotion on officiating basis and reverted the petitioner to his original official position of Assistant Engineer on account of his unsatisfactory service record.

2. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and has called in question legality and correctness of office order, dated 3-4-2008, referred to above on so many grounds.

3. This is a matter of record that the petitioner had not been promoted as University Engineer on regular basis and vide office order dated 30-12-2002 his promotion as University Engineer was on officiating basis subject to approval of the Syndicate or Chancellor. As the petitioner had never been promoted as University Engineer, therefore, the impugned order by means of which he was resorted to his original position should not have hurt him. The mere fact that the petitioner was promoted on officiating basis subject to approval of the authority would not create any right of promotion in his favour. Furthermore, the petitioner was proceeded against on the charge of misconduct. The charge-sheet annexed with this petition shows that he was charge-sheeted as under:-- "That during your posting as University Engineer in P.D. (Wing) B.Z. University, Multan you misplaced two measurement books Nos.439 and 443 in order to prepare new abstract of bills in some other measurement books so that payment should be got released, which were withheld by the Project Director" In the light of charge-sheet it can be safely said that the reasons which weighed with the respondent/Vice-Chancellor while passing the impugned order were not whimsical or arbitrary. According to the record the petitioner misused his official position, which was awarded to him on officiating basis. In this view of the matter the impugned order is not open to exception on any ground. I, therefore, dismiss this writ petition in limine. H.B.T./T-13/L Petition dismissed.