' SYED ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.-- Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner prayed that respondents be restrained to act discriminatory, illegally, with mala fide and without lawful authority and also sought direction to be issued to the respondents that petitioner be treated at par with the teachers named in paragraph No,8 and also to direct that the case of petitioner to be processed and to be appointed as Associate Professor (Political Science).
2. Facts in brief are that respondent-University advertised a number of teaching positions including that of Associate Professor of Political Science in the year 2005. The criteria advertised according to the University Calendar was Ph.D. With 10 years teaching/research experience from a recognized University or professional experience in the relevant field in the International Organization plus 5 Research Publications published in a Journals of National or International repute. Thereafter, respondents enhanced the qualification without amending the University Calendar on 6-8-2005.
The enhanced criteria for the candidate was Ph.D. With 10 years teaching/research experience plus 10 (later on reduced to 8) research publications in H.E.C. Approved abstracted journals. The date last for receipt of application was extended upto 30-11-2005. The petitioner applied for the post of Associate Professor of Political Science along with others. He was fully qualified for the said post having in his credit more than 10 years service in respondent-University and 12 Research Publications in Journals of National/ International repute and he was declared eligible by the Dean of the Faculty. His application was sent by the respondent No,2/ViceChancellor to three Subject Experts, including a Foreign Expert, drawn from a panel of Subject Experts duly approved by Syndicate on the recommendations of Selection Board with reference to provisions of the first statute in the B.Z.U. Act, 1975. The selection of the candidate was promptly processed but case of the petitioner was not processed by the University Administration and it was placed in cold storage for two years. Feeling aggrieved petitioner filed a representation on 12-12-2006 to the Chancellor.
The University/respondent No,2 also finalized the cases according to the eligibility criteria, of the candidates Dr. A. Quddus Sohaib, Dr. M. Ishaq Fani, Dr. Imran Sharif and Dr. Saiqa Imtiaz Asif in different subjects. Although petitioner was called for interview on 14-7-2007 but he was not interviewed without plausible, reason while other candidates above mentioned were interviewed and appointed. Again he was called on 1-12-2007 for interview but once again he was not interviewed. He was called just to be told that he was not eligible according to the revised enhanced criteria.
3. It is claimed that the petitioner was meted out with discriminatory treatment as other candidates were appointed according to the old criteria and not on the basis of the revised enhanced criteria.
At that time respondent made to understand to the petitioner that they would not repeat their mistake in future but admitted that the four candidates above mentioned have been appointed illegally as Associate Professors. This decision was accepted by respondent-Syndicate without applying their mind. The petitioner aggrieved from the order of the Selection Board and that of Syndicate, preferred a revision petition under section 11-A of the B.Z.U. Act, 1975 before the Governor Punjab] Chancellor but the same could not have been finalized for the reason best known to the authority. Hence prayed that these points need full consideration because the petitioner was fully qualified for the said post having experience in Research Publications published in Journals of National or International repute according to the strength of his research work he was declared eligible by the Dean of the Faculty for the post of Associate Professor of Political Science and consequently his application of Research Publication was also sent by the Vice-Chancellor to three Subject Experts, including a Foreign Expert, drawn from a panel of Subject Experts duly approved by the Syndicate on the recommendations of the Selection Board.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the act of respondent-authorities runs counter to the principle of consistency as envisaged in the eligibility criteria prescribed for the said post in the University Calendar on the basis of which the respondent has appointed other Associate Professor in spite of the facts petitioner was also recommended by the Dean of the Faculty concerned and he was not treated at par with others and rule of the principle of consistency was also violated which is infringement of his fundamental right by the act of injustice of the respondent. Also argued that having once advertised the eligible criteria, the respondent could not be changed as on the last date as done in this case there should have been fresh advertisement after cancellation of the previous advertisement. The petitioner has been ignored on technical ground and new criteria of the H.E.C. Has been applied in the case of petitioner only and not applied to other teachers four persons, referred above. The other candidates did not fulfil the said enhanced criteria and this act of the respondent is mala fide and void ab initio as well. The ground of denial that the petitioner does not have 8 Research Publications published in H.E.C.
Approved obstracted journals is untenable. Petitioner applied for the post in the year 2005 and till that time University had no H.E.C. Approved abstracted journal for the Faculty of Social Sciences. It was for the first time that H.E.C. Notified Pakistan Social Sciences journals recognized by H.E.C. In August, 2006 which becomes after one year after publications of the advertisement, therefore, the question to ignore him was against the fact. That 12 Articles published in reputed National/International Journal had been accepted by Dean of Faculty of Social Sciences/Member of Selection Board and respondent-University has accepted petitioner as an eligible candidate for the post of Associate Professor of Political Science. That his application along with Research papers were also referred to three Subject Specialist. Now the University is estopped on the basis of principle of locus poenitentiae to declare petitioner as an ineligible candidate after lapse of two years particularly when other Associate Professors have been appointed on the basis of previous criteria of eligibility. That the respondent could not disregard to the evaluation recorded by Experts with regard to eligibility/suitability of the petitioner. That the appointment of Director Quality Assurance to participate in the Interview Board was also illegal and against the University Act as no authority can change the structure of the Selection Board and the inclusion or exclusion in its member is patently unlawful despite respondents Nos.2 and 3 notified the inclusion of stranger as referred above. Also argued that in the situation petitioner has lost the hope of redressal of his grievance from the respondent-authorities, therefore, constrained to invoke the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance is placed on PLD 1997 SC 382, 2004 YLR 1560 and 2003 YLR 67.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that in respect of change of criteria a corrigendum was issued and new publication was made. Petitioner has not been recommended by the Selection Board rather he was found not eligible referred Item. No,5 of the minutes of the meeting which relates to the post of Associate Professor of Political Science which reads as follows:-- "only candidate Dr. Omer Farooq Zain appeared before the Selection Board. The Selection Board observed that he was not eligible for the post of Associate Professor due to short of requisite Research Publication in the International abstracted journal recognized by the H.E.C. After thorough discussion the Board decided to advertise the post."
' On the basis of minutes of meeting argued by learned counsel for the respondents that Selection Board has not found him eligible for the post, therefore, the submissions of the petitioner is merely a concealment of facts. That with reference to the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner on the point that some of the candidates were also not recommended despite they have been declared eligible. He referred Item No,4, that their publication was re-checked, some of their publications were accepted according to the criteria and they were appointed by the competent authority on the recommendation of the Selection Board. Further argued that this constitutional petition is not maintainable because the statutory rules are not applicable because the University is not empowered to make statute, regulations or rules but that power had been conferred on the authority of the University. The power to draft the statute proposed by Syndicate had been conferred upon the Senate of the University and after consideration on the draft would be forwarded to the Chancellor and would not be taken as effective until not approved by Governor/Chancellor. These rules were not statutory rules but the rules of the University because the Governor would exercise power and duties that of a Chancellor, under B.Z.U. Act, 1975. It was not act of the governor to be said as protected under the concerned Articles of Constitution of Pakistan, but as a Chancellor under University Act, the services of the employees were also not governed by statutory rules, therefore, the writ petition is not competent. He referred judgment reported in 2003 MLD 507 (Lahore) and also produced a copy of an unreported decision in I.C.A.
No,68 of 1995 dated 5-7-1995. Further argued that the case of those who were previously recommended for appointment were found eligible by the Selection Board while in the case of the petitioner, the publication in the International abstracted journals recognized by H.E.C. Was not approved. That the petitioner has also filed revision petition to Chancellor/Governor, Punjab and comments were sent on 24-1-2008, hence this petition is premature and not maintainable. The appointments of those who have been referred in the case of Dr. Riffat Parveen and Dr. Aslam Shad are distinguishable to the petitioner's case as the above persons were appointed in response to advertisement made in 2002 when there was no criteria which was given by H.E.C. Effective from the year, 2005. Reliance is placed on 1992 SCMR 1093, 1996 PLC (C.S.) 220, PLD 1996 SC 246, 2001 CLC (Lahore) 9, 2005 PLC (C.S.) 599 and PLD 2006 SC 564.
6. Heard.
7. The first and the foremost point raised through this constitutional petition is that the advertisement for the criteria for the post of Associate Professor according to the calendar of the University was published for applicant having Ph.D. Degree for ten years teaching/research experience from recognized University and professional experience in the relevant field in the National or International Organization plus five research publications published in journals of 'National or International repute. Thereafter the University enhanced the qualification without amendment of the University Calendar on 6-8-2005. According to the enhanced criteria for the candidate was Ph.D. With ten years teaching/research experience plus ten research publications.
Later on reduced to 8 research publications and the last date for receipt of the application was extended upto 30-11-2005. It is claimed that the petitioner has experience of ten years in teaching and research work with a twelve research publications in journals of National/International repute and was declared eligible by the Dean of the Faculty. That the selection of the other candidates was promptly processed but the case of the petitioner was not processed by the University Administration. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition on 12-12-2006 to the Chancellor. That the certain applicants were interviewed but the petitioner was not interviewed without plausible reason. He was called on 1-12-2007 for interview but again he was informed that he is not found eligible according to the reduced enhanced criteria. Therefore, his claim is that he has been treated discriminately with the other candidates who were appointed according to the old criteria and not on the basis of the reduced/enhanced criteria. That his revision petition before the Governor/Chancellor is still pending and could not be finalized for the best reason known to the Authority. The petitioner claimed that he was fully qualified for the said post and experience was according to the enhanced criteria as well and his research publications were published in the journals of national or international repute and he was found eligible by the Dean of the Faculty.
8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the research publications of the petitioner published in journals were not found upto the standard and he was not found eligible for the post according to the enhanced criteria. As far as challenging the enhanced criteria which was notified on 21-11-2005 is concerned, allegedly it was approved by the Authority and according to the enhanced criteria again applications upto 30-11-2005 were received. The petitioner filed an application according to the fresh advertisement. Hence he is estopped to agitate on the point. This point has vehemently been opposed by the respondents counsel. That in the light of instructions by the competent Authority, the criteria in accordance with the direction could be enhanced. I have given full consideration on this point.
9. In view of the situation put forth, the enhanced criteria was notified and even accepted by the petitioner. There is no lacuna and illegality on behalf of the University to enhance the criteria at their own will rather it was with the direction of the Higher Education Commission. As far as selection of the petitioner is concerned, the case of the petitioner was not recommended and his research work with regard to publications in journals in National or International repute was not found published in the approved selected journals. It is the authority competent to specify the publications in journals either in National or International repute. In this respect the petitioner cannot claim that the publication in the journals of National or International repute was fixed at the own choice of University to defeat the right of the petitioner. The discrimination is not found to select other according to previous criteria, because these referred were selected according to some previous advertisement as explained. I also took a guidance from a case reported in PLD 2006 SC 564, in which the case of the candidate was recommended by the Selection Board despite Syndicate did not approve the recommendation whereas in the case in hand case of the petitioner according to the minutes of the proceedings the Selection Board has not found him eligible. The petitioner cannot claim his recommendation against the record. The question of accrual of any vested right does not arise. It was the matter of policy to enhance the criteria. It is up to the policy-maker who is competent. It appears that the role of the Selection Board is that of recommendation and not a final. The factual controversy, to determine that his work published in the journals of National or International repute was not found up to the standard with mala fide and the petitioner intends to redress of grievance with this regard but this Court has no jurisdiction.
It is also not within the jurisdiction to direct policy-maker to correct the policy according to the convenience of the candidates. The petitioner cannot be said to have been deprived of from any vested right. As observed above, neither there is any recommendation of the Selection Board nor the policy-maker could be directed to change the policies. The enhanced criteria was within the jurisdiction of the competent authority prescribed. The other points raised by learned counsel for the respondents need not to discuss. The result of this discussion and order may not affect on the revision filed to the Chancellor. This petition has no legal force. Therefore, the same is dismissed.