' JUSTICE (RETD.) RUSTAM ALI MALIK (CHAIRMAN).--- The appellant has filed this appeal on the plea that he was appointed as Lecturer in University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi on daily basis vide order, dated 9-12-1988 and according to the laid down procedure. He was confirmed as Lecturer Sociology on permanent basis vide order, dated 21-7-1999 after completing all legal formalities. In the year 2000, a post of Assistant professor of Sociology was advertised by the University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi and he applied for the said post in response to an advertisement published in the Daily "Jang" dated 4-4-2000. He was appointed as Assistant Professor Sociology in the aforesaid University vide order, dated 16-9-2000. All of his documents i,e, educational certificates and experience certificates were scrutinized and verified by the Department and after complete satisfaction of respondents Nos.2 and 3, he was given the charge of the post of Assistant Professor Sociology. He performed his duties as such in the University of Agriculture for three and half years.
But all of a sudden, vide letter, dated 4-2-2002, he came to know that an inquiry had been initiated against him. However, without receiving the findings as a result of the inquiry aforesaid, a second inquiry was initiated against him vide order, dated '20-7-2002. However, he was kept in the dark about the findings of these two inquiry reports and the same were shelved without informing him about the decision of the competent authority. Later, he was suddenly, informed vide a letter dated 11-11-2002 that a third inquiry had been initiated against him through a different Inquiry Officer, under different rules and regulations. It was then that he was provided a list of allegations against him and was asked to file a reply. Although he protested and took the plea that the allegations against him were false and were intended to victimize him, but the University Administration did not bother to listen to him. However, he submitted a reply to the allegations. The reply submitted by him was not considered by the competent authority. Vide a letter dated 7-4-2004 he was informed that his case had been placed before the Syndicate and the competent authority had imposed on him the major penalty of reduction to a lower' post of Lecturer Anthropology (BS-17) from the post of Assistant Professor of Sociology (BS-18). Aggrieved of the said order, he filed an appeal before this Tribunal (Appeal No,1783 of 2004) which was - disposed of on 14-10-2004 vide an order passed by the then Chairman of this Tribunal, issuing a direction to the Chancellor of the University for disposing of his representation through a speaking order. After waiting for a considerable time for the decision of his representation, he submitted a miscellaneous application for the implementation of the order of this Tribunal. On 12-5-2005, the, learned counsel for the appellant appeared and stated that his departmental appeal was being processed. His miscellaneous petition was disposed of and he Was allowed to file regular appeal against the impugned order dated 7-4-2004 and so he did. However, subsequently, the learned counsel for the respondents disclosed that the representation/departmental filed by him had been dismissed and hence he amended the memorandum of appeal to challenge the order passed by the appellate authority as well-It has been prayed by him that the impugned orders passed by the respondents be set aside and he may be allowed to continue as Assistant Processor of Sociology (BS-18) with all connected benefits.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the impugned order, 'dated 7-4-2004 was not only mala fide but also illegal and unwarranted as the appellant' had been appointed on the recommendation of the Selection Board of the University consisting of seasoned and very experienced teachers and nothing had been done by the appellant which may have amounted to misconduct; that the decision of the respondents was clearly arbitrary and against all norms of natural justice; that all of his documents i,e, educational certificates and experience certificates had been scrutinized at the time of his selection and it was done to the complete satisfaction of respondents Nos.2 and 3 and he had performed duties as Assistant Professor of Sociology for almost three and a half years and in this way a vested right had been created in his favour and he could not be deprived of the same. Relying on the case of Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P, Zakat/Social. Welfare Department, Peshawar and another v. Sadullah Khan 1996 SCMR 413 Supreme Court of Pakistan, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the respondents had never taken the plea that the appellant lacked qualification for the post in question and that they had appointed him against the vacancy of Assistant professor Sociology after adopting the lawful course and after completing all the formalities, hence they could not remove him from the said post, if they had themselves committed any irregularity. He has asserted that the impugned orders being illegal and unwarranted are liable to be set aside.
3. On the other hand, the respondents have taken the plea that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the appellant under the provisions of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and Inquiry officer was appointed vide order, dated 11-11-2002 to scrutinize the conduct of the appellant in accordance with the provisions of the said Ordinance.
The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and in which the appellant had also participated. The Inquiry Officer submitted Ns report/recommendations to the following effect:-- "From the above stated facts it can be safely concluded that the appointment of Mr. Abid Ghafoor Chaudhary as Assistant Professor Sociology is based on false statement regarding, his experience and publications, which falls under the definition of misconduct and unbecoming of a University teacher. It is, therefore, recommended that services of Mr. Abid Ghafoor Chaudhary should be terminated with immediate effect."
4. The respondents have taken the plea that the aforesaid findings/ recommendations of the Inquiry Officer were considered by the Authority/Syndicate of the University in its meeting held on 26-7-2003 and which decided to issue a final show-cause notice to the appellant. Consequently, a show-cause notice dated 28-1-2004 was issued to him with which was annexed a copy of the report of Inquiry Officer. He was asked vide letter, dated 23-2-2004 'to appear before the Authority/ Syndicate of the University for personal hearing. He accordingly appeared before the Authority in its meeting held on 28-2-2004. The Authority/Syndicate of the University after having gone through his reply submitted in response to the show-cause notice and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to him observed that the appellant at the time of his appointment in the University as Assistant Professor neither possessed the required six year experience as Lecturer or Researcher in a reputed educational/research institution nor he had published two research publications in the Journal of national and international repute. Hence the authority/Syndicate of the University imposed on him the major penalty of reduction to the lower post of Lecturer Anthropology (BS-17) vide impugned order dated 7-4-2004. The respondents have also taken the plea that the appeal filed by the appellant before this Tribunal is hopelessly time-barred and is liable to be dismissed on the said ground as well; that the appellant is estopped by his own conduct to file the appeal before this Tribunal; that in fact no injustice had been done to the appellant as actually he had been dealt with leniently on the basis of proved and established charge of misconduct; that his services could have been dispensed with in view of the allegation against him, yet the Authority/Syndicate of the University had taken a lenient view of the matter and had imposed on him only the penalty of reduction to the lower post of Lecturer in BS-17 and hence there is no justification for interference.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced from both sides and have also gone through the record. .
6. According to the version of the respondents, the appointment of the appellant as Assistant Professor Sociology was found patently illegal as the same had been made on extraneous considerations. The prescribed qualification and experience for the post of Assistant Professor Sociology as advertised by respondent No,2 was the following:--
(a) Ph.D. Or equivalent degree along with M.Sc. In relevant subject from a recognized University.
(b) Two years of teaching/research experience in a University or in a reputed National/International Institutions.
(c) Two research publications in journals of international repute. OR
(a) First Class Master Degree or equivalent qualification in the relevant subject from a recognized University.
(b) Six years of teaching/research experience in a University or in a reputed educational Institution as Lecturer or professional experience in National/International Institutions.
(c) Two research publications in journals of International repute.
7. According to the version of the respondents, the appellant did not possess the required experience of six years nor he was found to have published two research publication in terms of the requirement as mentioned in the press advertisement. He had applied for the post of Assistant Professor on 7-6-2000 and at that relevant time he possessed only two and a half years Post- Graduate experience as against requirement of six years. In terms of the requirement as mentioned in the press advertisement, two research papers were required to be published in reputable international journals. As against this requirement, the appellant had claimed to have published four research papers. In fact two of those publications, as claimed by the appellant, had been published, one of which was a one page article published in a monthly magazine "concept" which was not sufficient or adequate to meet the aforesaid requirement. The factual position explained by the respondents is that he had applied for the post of Assistant Professor on 6-2- 2000. His bio data and other particulars submitted by him along with his application were scrutinized by the Dean of Faculty of Sciences and he was declared as ineligible for the post applied for, Since he did not possess the requisite qualification/experience and he was accordingly informed in this respect by the University vide a letter dated 13-7-2000. It was not merely the appellant but the candidature of one Mr. Zahid Javaid had also been rejected on the ground that he lacked the requisite qualification and experience. However, it was surprising that all of a sudden a letter for interview was issued to him, asking him to appear before the Selection Board for interview for the post of Assistant Professor Sociology. The Working Paper was amended and the post of Assistant Professor was included therein and which indicates that the appointment of the appellant to the post of Assistant Professor Sociology (BS-18) had been made on extraneous considerations. It has been submitted .That the disciplinary proceedings had also been initiated against the Ex-Registrar of the University as *ell and on this account his services had also been dispensed with. As mentioned above, in this case the appellant has taken the plea that he had applied for the post in due course and had been selected by the Selection Board after following the required procedure. However, it is proved on record that ieither he possessed the requisite experience for the post of Assistant Professor Sociology nor he had got published two papers in Journals of National/International repute, Merely submission of papers for publication does not fulfil the said requirement unless the papers so submitted are actually published. It may be' worthwhile to note that a thorough inquiry into the matter was conducted and the Inquiry Officer had submitted a detailed' report in the matter. The conclusions and recommendations of the Inquiry Officer are reproduced below:-
(I) Mr. Abid Ghafoor Chaudhry applied for the post of Assistant Professor on 7-6-2000. His bio-data 'was scrutinized by the' Dean, Faculty of Sciences who declared him ineligible for the post due to short of experience. Accordingly, he was informed vide No,UAAR/SB-10/2338, dated 13-7-2000, that your application for the said post cannot be considered due to lack of required relevant experience. Similarly, the application of another candidate Dr. Zahid Javed was also rejected due to lack of required qualification and experience vide No,UAAR/SB10/2327 dated 13-7-2002. After rejection of the applications for the post of Assistant Professor of Sociology, the Subject Expert was called only for the post of Lecturer vide No,UAAR/SB-10/2383 dated 15-7-2000. The working paper was also prepared only for the post of Lecturer. Then suddenly interview call was issued to Mr. Abid Ghafoor Chaudhry vide No,UAAR/SB-10/2578 dated 26-7-2002 for appearing before the Selection Board for the post of Assistant Professor of Sociology. The working paper was also amended and the post of Assistant Professor was also included at the spot. It is important to indicate that the Subject Expert was only arranged for the post of Lecturer as mentioned earlier. It indicated that the working paper was amended hurriedly by ignoring the arrangement of Subject Expert for the post of Assistant Professor. It is clear that the required procedure was not followed in this appointment.
(II) The posts were advertised for the subject of Sociology. Mr. Abid Ghafoor Cliaadhry has M.Sc. In Anthropology. It was also pointed out by Mr. Muhammad Latif Virk, one of the members of Selection Board, whose observation was that none of the candidates qualify for the post due to lack of proper qualification. The opinion of University Administration that the person in Anthropology can be utilized in Sociology is invalid due to the following reasons:--
(i) It was not mentioned in advertisement.
(ii) University is offering two different degrees in Sociology and Anthropology. There is no justification of offering two different degrees if these are one and the same thing.
Recommendations ' From the above facts it can be safely concluded that the appointment of Mr. Abid Ghafoor Chaudhry as Assistant Professor Sociology is based on false statement regarding his experience and publications which falls under the definition of misconduct and unbecoming of a University teacher. It is therefore, recommended that the services of Mr. Abid Ghafoor Chaudhry should be terminated with immediate effect."
8. The appellant had appeared before the Authority/Syndicate of the University and as such had availed of opportunity of personal hearing. Paras. Nos.6 and 7 of the impugned order dated 7-4- 2004 read as below:-- "Mr. Abid Ghafoor again appeared before the University Syndicate (Authority) in its 29th meeting held on 28-2-2004. The reply to show-cause notice and his plea before the University Syndicate (Authority) during personal hearing was discussed thoroughly by the house. After an indepth study of whole issue, the house decided to rescind the order of appointment of Mr. Abid Ghafoor Chaudhry as Assistant Professor of Sociology (BS-18) which was found void ab initio and revert him to the post of Lecturer Anthropology (BS-17) with effect from 11-9-2000, the date of his joining as Assistant professor of Sociology as he neither possessed the relevant post-qualification experience of six years as Lecturer or Researcher in reputed educational/research institutions nor he had published two research publications in journals of national and international repute' as provided by the Inquiry Officer.
' Consequently, the major penalty of reduction to lower post of Lecturer Anthropology (BS-17) is imposed upon Mr. Abid Ghafoor Chaudhry, Assistant Professor of Sociology (BS-18) in terms of decision of the competent authority."
9. The appellant had filed representation/departmental appeal before the net higher departmental authority and which was disposed of vide order, dated 25-11-2005. Para. No,7 of the order passed by the appellate authority reads as below:-- "Now, therefore, I, Lt.-Gen. Khalid Maqbool (Retd), Governor Punjab/Chancellor, University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi as Appellate Authority, after having perused the pleas taken by the appellant/representationist in his appeal/representation, enquiry report, findings/recommendations of the Enquiry Officer, report of Hearing Officer and other record placed before me, have reached the conclusion that the appeal/ representation filed by Mr. Abid Ghafoor Chaudhry, Assistant Professor is devoid of merit. The appeal/representation is therefore, rejected and the order No,UAAR/Synd-29/696, dated 7-4-2004 of the University of Arid Agriculture is upheld."
10. From what has been stated above, it is clear that a detailed inquiry into the matter had been held in which the appellant had also participated. The authority/Syndicate of the University had also afforded him an opportunity of personal hearing and had mentioned reasons for its decision as contained in the impugned order, dated 7-4-2004. Even the Chancellor of the University had passed a detailed order supported with reasons. Since the appellant did not possess the requisite experience nor did he fulfill other requirements for appointment as Assistant Professor 'Sociology, therefore, his appointment as such could not be treated as legal. It was held so in the case of Noor Ahmed v. Secretary Local Government Public Health Engineering Rural Government and Kachi Abadis Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi etc. Reported as 2005 TD. (Service) 286. It was held in the case of Tahmasub Faraz Tayyab and 13 others v. Vice-Chancellor, University of Health Sciences, Lahore Camp at Sheikh Zayed Hospital, Lahore and 3 others reported as PLD 2005 Lah. 261 that it is not a principle of law that an act once done becomes irrevocable and past and closed transaction, if the original act was illegal and under such circumstances no vested right is deemed to have accrued if it was based on an illegality. Similarly it was also held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Abdul Hague Indhar and others v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Forest, Fisheries and Livestock Department, Karachi and 3 others reported as 2000 SCMR 907 and the Engineer-in-Chief Branch through Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and another v. Jalaluddin PLD 1992 SC 207 that if an order is illegal, then perpetual rights cannot be gained on its basis.
11. In the instant case as the basic order regarding appointment of the appellant as Assistant Professor Sociology (BS-18) was illegal, he did not acquire any vested right on the basis of such an illegal order. The impugned order does not appear to be illegal or unjust in any way. However, the order aforesaid passed by the competent authority shall be deemed to be effective w,e,f, 7-4-2004 i,e, the date on which it was passed and not from 11-9-2000, as no executive order can have retrospective effect. With this modification in the impugned order, dated 7-4-2004, the appeal is dismissed.