' RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.--- Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner impugned the order, dated -15-2-2008, passed by respondent, being coram non judice, not passed by the competent authority, without any reason, out of personal vendetta and in derogation to the mandate of section 24-A of General Clauses Act.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed as Registrar, on 28-8-2006, in Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, in pursuance of the decision made by the Syndicate, who was the competent authority. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 15- 2-2008, by respondent without assigning any reason, who was not competent to pass such an order. He adds that power under section 13(3) of the Quaid-i-Azam University Act, does not apply for the termination of petitioner and respondent has not exercised these powers properly, therefore, the order is without lawful authority and coram non-judice. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to section 22 clause (r) of the Quaid-i-Azam University Act, 1973, in which the powers and duties of the Syndicate have been mentioned. Clause
(r) is reproduced as follows for the ready reference:-- "(r) to suspend, punish and remove from service in the prescribed manner officers other than the Vice-Chancellor, and the Treasurer, Teachers and other employees whom it is empowered to appoint;"
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on Regulation No.4, in which the classification of University Service has been given. It is added that the appointment of employees in category-I shall be made by the Syndicate on the recommendations of the Selection Board and in view of Regulation-7 of the University Act, the services of the University employees shall be confirmed after two years of the service by the appointing authority:
4. The learned counsel has further contended that respondent, Vice Chancellor, does not figure in the statute as the competent authority, therefore, he could not pass such an order. He further argued that the impugned order was passed out of personal vendetta and in violation of section 24-A of General Clauses Act and the principle of audi alteram partem.
5: Lastly, . The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that impugned order is just like a waste paper as same is void order in the eye of law as being not passed by the competent authority.
Reliance has been placed on 1993 SCMR 17 (95), 1994 SCMR 1140, 1997 SCMR 190, 1973 PLD 236, PLD 1976 SC 208, 1999 SCMR 2744/2189, 1991 SCMR 2330, 2007 SCMR 152, 2007 SCMR 1091, 2007 SCMR 1759, 1999 SCMR 1072, 2001 SCMR 209, 2001 SCMR 777, 2001 SCMR 149, 2002 SCMR 1632, PLD 2002 Karachi 131, 1994 PLD 1048(sic), 2007 SCMR 1759 and 2007 SCMR 1091.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has strongly argued on the maintainability of this petition; that an alternate remedy has been provided under section 34 of the University Act, therefore, without exhausting that remedy, this petition is not maintainable. He further argued that being head of the Administration, the powers lies with the Vice-Chancellor, who may take any action, which in his opinion requires immediate action and he may (sic) by the Vice- Chancellor are in accordance with law. The safer course for the petitioner was to approach the Appellate Authority before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. It is added that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands, as he has suppressed the material facts of the case. The petitioner has not brought this fact before this Court that he was on probation and his services were subject to terms and conditions of the appointment letter and he was not appointed on regular basis, therefore, his services were liable to termination without assigning any reason.
Reliance has been placed on 2001 SCMR 125. He has further argued that working of petitioner was not up to the mark and in this regard Vice-Chancellor has already shown his displeasure and the same was also conveyed to the Dean of the Faculty. He was not performing his functions properly and almost he has collapsed whole of the working of the University. The service of the petitioner was subject to some terms and conditions, which were mentioned in his appointment letter. On this juncture, when a query was made about the appointing authority of the petitioner, he clearly stated that competent authority/appointing authority was the Syndicate, and his appointment was made by a High Power Board. Reliance has also been placed on 1999 SCMR 95, 2003 SCMR 1493, 1990 SCMR 1404, PLD 1974 SC 146, 2003 PLC (C.S.) 255, 2001 SCMR 125 and 2005 SCMR 1650.
7. Ch. Afrasiab Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply to the argument regarding maintainability, has contended that in the case of an order, which was passed without lawful authority and not valid, in the eye of law, this Court has ample jurisdiction to intervene, in spite of the statutory remedy available under the law. In this regard, he has relied upon 2002 SCMR 1632 and 2001 SCMR 209.
8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I entertain serious doubts whether the Vice- Chancellor has the statutory powers under the statute of the University or under any other law for the time being in force, to pass an order which was the only prerogative of the Syndicate. It is admitted position that the petitioner's appointment was made in pursuance of the order of the Syndicate, who was only competent authority. The question of probation and regularization does not arise where the powers have not been rightly exercised.
9. I have minutely gone through section 13(3) University Act, but could not find any such power for the termination of a person, who falls in category-1 of the statute, whose appointing authority was Syndicate. On this, I can safely observe that instead of adopting proper course to place the matter before the competent authority, respondent himself tried to exercise powers of competent authority.
11. In view of above discussion, this petition is accepted, order passed by respondent No.1 is declared to be illegal, without lawful authority, therefore, the same is set aside. The respondent is directed to place the matter before the Syndicate within two months.