' University of the Punjab had advertised certain posts to be filled in, including that of Professors, Assistant Professors and Lecturers published in the daily 'Jang' dated 30-5-2000. Dr. Zaid Mahmood, the petitioner herein applied for the post of Professor of General and Inorganic Chemistry in the Institute of Chemistry. There were other candidates as well for the same post. As per the procedure of selection they were interviewed on 26-9-2001 by the Selection Board. The petitioner, however, was not selected and Dr. Javed Iqbal who is respondent No.6 herein was selected. He was issued appointment letter dated 15-10-2001 and his selection was approved later on by the Syndicate on 5-10-2002. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of his non-selection and assailing the selection of respondent No.6 has filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 that the recommendations of the Selection Board and the appointment of respondent No.6 "may kindly be declared to be illegal, arbitrary, biased, unfair and predetermined on the part of the respondents Nos.1 to 4" and that the respondent may be directed to appoint the petitioner against the post of Professor of General and Inorganic Chemistry.
2. The foremost and prime basis for assailing his non-selection is that the proceedings of the selection were tainted with bias, which lacked fairness and impartiality. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the Chairman of the Department namely Dr. M. Zafar Iqbal, Dean Faculty of Science and Director Institute of Chemistry had biased approach towards the petitioner and was hostile to him since long. It is his case that interview by the Board was merely a formality whereas the selection of respondent No.6 was a predetermined affair which was commonly known due to the adverse disposition and conduct of Dr. M. Zafar Iqbal. Referring to the provisions of section 15 of The University Punjab Act, 1973 it is contended that it was not such a case wherein emergency power of the Vice Chancellor could be invoked and that such power vests with the Syndicate of the University to make appointments of University Teachers under section 26 of The University of the Punjab, Act 1973. He cites instances of other appointments made in the University to contend that the petitioner had been victimized and been dealt with unfairly.
3. The learned Legal Advisor for the University has endeavoured to rebut the allegations of the petitioners and contends that the selection was made by a Board comprising high dignitaries whose credibility and uprightness was aboveboard and the alleged bias of one person could not in any case influence the decision of other members. According to him the selection was later ratified by the Syndicate who had necessary power and authority under the law. It is pointed out by him that the referees' reports were against the petitioner who was rightly ignored by the Selection Board.
4. The petitioner claims to be a highly qualified teacher in his field of education who is Ph.D from University of Leicester. He thinks that in the process of selection he has been victimized due to bias and partisan attitude of Dr. M. Zafar Iqbal, Dean Faculty of Science and Director Institute of Chemistry (respondent No.2) who was Member of the said Selection Board. He refers to the applications dated 24-9-2001, 26-9-2001 and 2-10-2002 addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of the University stating the background of the hostile attitude and unfavourable approach of respondent No.2 towards the petitioner. The representations of the petitioner, according to him were never responded to. The contention of the learned counsel for the University, however, has some substance that even if it be assumed that respondent No.2 was biased towards the petitioner he could not be excluded from the Selection Board as his presence as Member of the Selection Board was a statutory requirement in view of paragraph 6 of the First Statute of the University of the Punjab, which could not be disposed with. The said provision of law envisages the constitution of the Selection Board as under:-- "6.(1) The Selection Board shall consist of:--Selection Board
(i) the Vice-Chancellor, (Chairman)
(ii) the Pro-Vice-Chancellor;
(iii) the Chairman, or a member of the Public Service Commission to nominated by the Chairman;
(iv) the Dean of the Faculty concerned;
(v) the Chairman of the Teaching Department/Director of the Institute and Principal of the constituent College concerned; and
(vi) one member of the Syndicate (or one member of the Chancellor's committee till the Syndicate is constituted under the Act) and two other members to be appointed by the Syndicate, provided that none of them is an employee of the University.
' The presence of respondent No.2 in the Selection Board was thus a necessity and command of the statute. In Administrative Law by H.W.R. Wade and C.F. Forsyth Eighth Edition at page 452, there are comments qua such a situation that "Where statute empowers a particular minister or official to act, he will usually be the one and only person who can do so. There is then no way of escaping the responsibility, even it he is personally interested." In view of clause (iv) and (v) of Para 6 of Statutes, respondent No.2 participated in the proceedings of Selection Board, as per requirement of law.
5. Besides the above mentioned position in law the question, however, that agitates the mind is that when the petitioner had expressed his legitimate apprehension about bias of one of the members of the Selection Board before the date of interview and even afterwards, could his grievance be ignored altogether. He emphatically states that he was not treated justly and fairly and was victim of partisan approach of respondent No.2 due to the departmental and administrative bias. His representations made to the Vice Chancellor of the University in the circumstances could have been placed before the Syndicate, who could have considered the same. This, however, was not done, perhaps for the reason, that by that time he had approached the Court and the matter was pending. Be that as it may the worth, verity and correctness or otherwise of the allegations of bias is a question of fact dependent upon an enquiry, which exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court nor any definite findings can be recorded in writ jurisdiction.
The power of judicial review is limited and subject to constraints. The Court cannot proceed on the basis of mere assumptions, surmises and conjectures. It even is not expected to intermeddle with the administrative field of the University. The Court is obliged to assume that the respondent University would have acted fairly and justly in the performance of its functions unless shown that the action was tainted with malice or violative of law or principles of natural justice. If, so established only then the Court would interfere in such a matter.
6. The petitioner in any case was not remediless as section 11-A of The University of the Punjab Act, 1973 which deals with the revisional powers of the Chancellor could well be invoked by him. It reads as under: " 11-A . Revisional powers of the Chancellor: ' The Chancellor may of his own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any proceedings in which an order has been passed by any authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness legality or propriety of any finding or order and may pass such orders as he may deem fit".
(Portions underlined by me due to relevance and importance).
' This provision of law vests the Chancellor of the University with vast revisional powers. He has extensive power to call for and examined the record of any proceedings in order to satisfy himself that no injustice and illegality has been committed in the matter. The petitioner could invoke his revisional jurisdiction by placing before him the entire facts and material for the redressal of his grievance. He may still avail that remedy. In case he chooses to do so, hopefully the limitation bar (if any) will not be invoked against him as he had been pursuing the remedy before this Court.
' In view of the above approach to the matter the petition is dismissed with the above observations with no order as to costs. #EndJudgment