Through the instant constitutional petition, the letter dated 14.1.1999 issued by the respondent- University was challenged, by which the petitioner was directed to appear in person before the Syndicate on 16.1.1999, on basis of an order dated 13.12.1997 passed by the Governor of Punjab as Chancellor of the University.
2. Brief facts of the case as originate from the contents of this petition are that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Registrar by the Syndicate in its meeting dated 17/18.12.1995 and appointment letter was issued to him on 24.12.1995, in pursuant thereto he also assumed the charge, as such. The Respondent No, 4 namely Khalid Mehmood Aali, challenged the appointment of the petitioner through W.P. No, 2611/1996 on the ground that petitioner was not .equipped with requisite qualification of Master Degree, as such, was not eligible for the said post of Assistant Registrar and that he (Respondent No, 4) having M.A qualification fulfilled the criteria, as such, was eligible to be appointed. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 19.11.1997 with the following order: "Copy of this petition along with annexures are transmitted to the Secretary to the Governor of Punjab, Governor House, Lahore who shall place this matter before Chancellor for appropriate order."
In compliance with the above order, the Governor of Punjab vide letter dated 13.12.1997 directed that application of Respondent No, 4 be placed before the Syndicate for its examination and necessary action in accordance with rules, within one month. Aggrieved by the above letter of the Chancellor, the petitioner filed a W.P.No, 1443-S/ 1998-BWP, wherein following order was passed: "Let a copy of this petition be transmitted to the Secretary to the Governor Punjab, Governor House, Lahore, for such action as the Governor may like to in the facts and circumstances of the case in his capacity as Chancellor of the Islamia University, Bahawalpur."
Afterwards, the Deputy Registrar of the respondent-Islamia University vide impugned letter dated 14.1.1999 directed the petitioner to appear before the Syndicate on 16.1.1999, which direction has in fact been assailed through the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is not bound to appear before the Syndicate as in the earlier writ petition the matter was referred by this Court to the Chancellor, who was the competent authority to decide the issue.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent-University by rebutting the above assertion of learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that instant petition is not maintainable and the petitioner in fact intends to linger on the matter only with a desire to circumvent the proceedings of the Syndicate.
5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the available record.
6. It is astonishing to note that petitioner, who is employee of the respondent-University, is reluctant to appear before the Syndicate of the said University itself, which otherwise is indicative of his highhandedness, in fact. The Syndicate includes a Judge of this Court, Vice-Chancellor of the University, and so many other dignitaries. As such, it is far from imagination that any adverse action will be taken by such like constituted Syndicate, against the petitioner without listening him or ignoring the real facts. Therefore, hesitation and reluctance on the part of the petitioner to appear before the Syndicate is not understandable at all, whereas, the matter is lingering on since 1999 on the basis of instant writ petition, wherein, the petitioner had succeeded in getting a stay order. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that matter was only referred to the Chancellor, is not true. This Court only had directed the Chancellor/Governor of the Punjab to pass appropriate order and the Governor of Punjab in his capacity as Chancellor referred the matter to the Syndicate, thus, there is no violation of any order of this Court.
7. In view of the above, I see no substance in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed, with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Syndicate where the Respondent No, 3 shall place his matter and the Syndicate shall finally decide the matter of course after full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.