' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, J.--- This appeal, with leave of the Court, is directed against the judgment passed by the High Court on 20-2-2002, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent, herein, was accepted.
2. Facts relevant for the decision of this appeal, briefly stated, are that a post of Associate Professor Electronics/Electrical Engineer B-19 to be filled in by initial recruitment in accordance with the relevant law and rules was advertised in the newspapers. The appellant No,6 and the respondent appeared before the Selection Board on 23-2-1997. After conducting interview the Selection Board gave preference to the respondent against the post as he had claimed at his credit some projects which, according to him, were initiated and completed by him and the same in the wisdom of the Selection Board was a significant contribution in the field of Electronics. The Selection Board empowered the Vice-Chancellor of the University to verify the authenticity of the claim regarding such projects and in case his claims were not substantiated by the facts then alternatively appellant No,6 was to be appointed against the vacant post. The Vice-Chancellor without acting in accordance with the direction of the Selection Board deputed on 7-3-1997, the Dean of the Ali Ahmed Shah University of Engineering and Technology Mirpur (hereinafter to be referred as the Dean of Engineering University) and directed him to visit such projects and report back in the light of the direction of the Selection Board. The Dean of the Engineering University submitted the report to the Vice-Chancellor on 29-3-1997 which was taken into consideration by the Syndicate of the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in its meeting held on 4-8-1997. On the basis of this report the Syndicate gave sanction to the appointment of appellant No,6 against the aforementioned vacant post of Associate Professor. In consequence of the order of the Syndicate the appointment of appellant No,6 was issued on 26-8-1997. The respondent, herein, challenged the correctness of the appointment order of appellant No,6 by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court on 13-9- 1997. His writ petition was allowed by the High Court through an elaborate judgment dated 21-5- 1998. The judgment of the High Court was assailed in appeal, with leave of the Court, before this Court by appellant No,6. His appeal with the following modification was dismissed by this Court on 2-7-1998.
"Upshot of the foregoing discussion is that the appeal is dismissed with the modification that the Vice-Chancellor will prepare a report in accordance with the decision of the Selection Board and the report will be considered by the Syndicate."
3.
4. In the light of the aforementioned order of this Court the Vice-Chancellor inspected the claimed projects of the respondent himself and submitted a report on 25-5-1999. After this report the Syndicate again on 29-5-1999 gave approval to the appointment of appellant No,6 in whose favour a formal order of appointment was issued second time on 18-6-1999.
5. The report submitted by the Vice-Chancellor on 25-5-1999, the approval granted by the Syndicate on 29-5-1999 and the appointment order of appellant No,6, Dr. Muhammad Sarwer Ahmed, dated 18-6-1999, were second time challenged by the respondent on 21-7-1999 before the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The High Court accepted the writ petition of the respondent vide judgment under challenge, dated 20-2-2002. Hence this appeal with leave of the Court.
5. Mr. Farooq Hussain Kashmiri, the learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the judgment of the High Court is violative of the law and even against the dictum laid down by this Court in the previous round of litigation between the contesting parties. According to him, in the previous round of litigation this Court gave a direction to the Vice-Chancellor to verify the projects claimed by the respondent to his credit and submit the report to that extent to the Syndicate. The Vice-Chancellor in accordance with the direction, of this Court inspected the projects and submitted his report to the Syndicate. As the projects were in fact carried out by the students and not by the respondent, therefore, the report of the Vice-Chancellor could not be different from the one which was earlier submitted by the Dean of the Engineering University on 29-3-1997. According to him, no project was either initiated or completed by the respondent therefore, the recommendations made by the Selection Board could not be taken in his favour by the Syndicate of the University. The alternate recommendations were in favour of Dr. Muhammad Sarwer Ahmed, appellant No,6, who was rightly appointed under the orders of the Syndicate against the disputed vacant post. He further argued that the report was to be furnished by the Vice-Chancellor before the4Syndicate and not before the Selection Board, therefore, the report prepared by the Vice-Chancellor was rightly taken by the Syndicate as a part of the recommendations made by the Selection Board, therefore, it was wrongly assumed that the Syndicate passed the appointment order in favour of appellant No,6 on the report of Vice-Chancellor and not on the recommendations made by the Selection Board. The learned counsel strenuously objected that the projects completed by the students daring the course of their studies could be credited to the merit of the respondent. According to the learned counsel the High Court has wrongly extended the benefit of the projects of students to the respondent merely on the ground that in the opinion of the Selection Board the completion of such projects was significant contribution in the field of electronics. The learned counsel further argued that the significant work claimed by the respondent was subject to verification by the Vice- Chancellor of the University who filed his report whereby he negated the claim of the respondent that he ever initiated or completed such projects. In these circumstances, according to the learned counsel, there was no justification for the High Court to substitute its wisdom and pass order of appointment in favour of respondent which order was to be made by the Syndicate under law.
According to the learned counsel, the order recorded by this Court in previous round of litigation has not been properly taken into consideration by the High Court while placing reliance upon that judgment. In the light of the above referred facts, he contended that the judgment under challenge passed by the High Court is not maintainable.
6. While controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, Khawaja Shahad Ahmed, the learned counsel for the respondent, argued that the Vice-Chancellor was required to verify the projects and to submit his report to the Syndicated. He firstly deputed the Dean of the Engineering University to act on his behalf and submit the report. The Vice Chancellor on the basis of that report obtained the appointment order of appellant No,6 from the Syndicate. The practice adopted in securing appointment order of appellant No,6 was discouraged by the Courts as the High Court while allowing the writ petition filed by his client set aside the procedure which culminated into the appointment order of appellant. No, 6 against the disputed vacant post and when that order was challenged in appeal before this Court the judgment of the High Court was maintained, however, the Vice-Chancellor was directed to submit his report to the Syndicate in accordance with the direction issued by the Selection Board. According to the learned counsel the Vice-Chancellor admitted the completion of projects, however, in order to extend undue benefit to the appellant No,6, he denied the benefit of projects to the respondent on the ground that these were completed by the students. According to him no student had denied the supervision and advice of his client which paved way in the completion of the projects. He strenuously supported the judgment of the High Court.
7. We have given dispassionate thought to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. This is the second round of litigation between the parties.
The basis of the controversy is the recommendations which were made by the Selection Board. In order to have a correct perception of dispute it appears appropriate to reproduce below the language which was applied by the Selection Board while making recommendations about the disputed vacant post:- "Selection.---in course of interview Engineer Muhammad Khalid, Assistant Professor also explained some of the Projects that he initiated/completed which in the opinion of the Selection Board is a significant contribution in the field of Electronics. After the interview and in the light of the evaluation reports of publications by the Subject Specialist(s) the Selection Board recommended the following candidates in order to merit for the only one post of Associate Professor (BS-19) in the department of Electronic/Electrical Engineering subject to the verification of projects completed by Engineer Muhammad Khalid, Assistant Professor: -
(a) Engineer Muhammad Khalid, Assistant Professor
(b) Dr. Muhammad Sarwer Ahmed The Selection Board further empowered the Vice-Chancellor to verify the authenticity of the claims regarding above referred projects. In case his claims are not substantiated by facts the candidate on serial No,(b) i.e, Dr. Muhammad Sarwer Ahmed, Assistant Professor, shall stand recommended for the post."
8. The Vice-Chancellor without acting in furtherance of the above referred recommendations directed the Dean of the Engineering University on 7-3-1997 to inspect the projects claimed by the respondent and report back as desired by the Selection Board. The Dean of the said University submitted his report on 29-3-1997 which was placed before the Syndicate by the Vice-Chancellor.
This report was against the claim E of the respondent that he had initiated and completed certain projects which in the wisdom of the Selection Board was a significant contribution in the field of Electronic. The Syndicate in consequence of this report on 4-8-1997 approved the appointment of appellant No,6 as Associate Professor against the disputed vacant post. Consequently on 26-8- 1997 the appointment order of appellant No,6 was issued in his favour. The respondent brought a writ petition in the High Court on 13-9-1997 through which he challenged the report of the Dean of Engineering University and also the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 7-3-1997, whereby instead of inspecting himself the claimed projects, he had deputed the Dean of Engineering University to visit and report back about the projects. In his writ petition the respondent also challenged the report of the Dean of the Engineering University dated 29-3-1997, the approval of appointment granted by the Syndicate of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir University in favour of appellant No,6 on 4-8-1997, and the appointment order of the said appellant dated 26-8-1997. After taking necessary proceedings the learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted his writ petition vide judgment dated 21-5-1998 on the following terms:-- "(14) For the above reasons, I feel that there has been miscarriage of justice in this case. The steps listed above, have been wrongly taken as such the appointment of respondent No,5 made on some misconceptions is bad in law. The same is, therefore, set aside and it is directed that the Selection Board shall reconsider the case whether:--- ' the report of the Dean is in accordance with the requirement of the Selection Board; ' the Selection Board is not justified about the claim of the petitioner in light of the report; ' further action may be taken by the Selection Board as it deems fit.
15. As upshot of the above discussion, the appointment of respondent No,5 is set aside and proceedings shall be taken afresh."
9. This judgment was assailed in appeal by appellant No,6, however, his appeal was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 2-7-1997. However the direction was modified in the terms reproduced by us in para.2 of this judgment.
10. Before proceeding further it appears necessary to say that any finding which has attained finality by the lapse of time or on account of conduct of the parties cannot be reopened as that finding become past and closed transaction. The fresh evaluation of arguments is, therefore, to be made keeping in view the previous findings. First of all we will like to attend the main argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the projects of the students, even if they were finalized under the supervision of the respondent, cannot be treated to be his projects and, therefore, the High Court has wrongly extended the benefit of projects completed by the students to the merit of the respondent.
11. In the first round of litigation this Court at page 10 of its judgment has observed as under:--- "...The High Court therefore reached the conclusion that the verification which the Selection Board had left to the Vice-Chancellor only related to the factual aspect of the matter whether the projects relied upon by respondent No,7 were in fact supervised or advised by him..."
12. On the same page it was held that the Selection Board had held about these projects in the light of the evaluation reports of publication by subject specialists, as a significant contribution in the field of electronics and then again it was held as under:--- "....The Selection Board had only left one question open, namely, whether the projects were completed under the supervision of the respondent or not. The aforementioned conclusions reached by the High Court are plainly correct."
' It was further observed at pages 10 and 11 as under- ' ... The decision by the Selection Board has already been reproduced and it is not open to two interpretations that the Selection Board was impressed by the projects supervised by the respondent as well as by the evaluation reports of publications of the respondent made by the subject specialists. The minutes of the Selection Board clearly show that the projects and publications duly separately assessed."
' Again at pages 11 and 12 of the judgment it was mentioned by this Court as under:--- "... It may be seen that the Dean of Engineering College in his report reproduced above passed adverse remarks about the projects. He observed that these projects were the studies carried out by the students and respondent No,7 only supervised them. While discussing these projects the Dean referred to them as "project reports mentioned in the bio-data of Engineer Muhammad Khalid." The Vice-Chancellor also referred to them as "the projects enlisted in the bio-data of Engineer Khalid." The bio-data of respondent No,7 forms part of the High Court file and is placed at pages 40-42. Respondent No,7 mentioned twenty one projects beginning from the year 1987 till the year 1996 and stated about them that those were the projects which were advised and supervised by him of the students of B.Sc. Electrical Engineering. This bio-data had been examined by the Selection Board and there is no ambiguity on this point that the Selection Board was cognizant of the fact that respondent No,7 had only supervised the projects, but still the Selection Board praised the contribution. The learned counsel for the appellant, Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, failed to show that any other interpretation can be validly placed on the decision of the Selection Board."
(Underlining is ours).
13. In his report the Vice-Chancellor nowhere mentioned that the students told him that these projects were not initiated by them under the supervision of the respondent or he had no hand in the initiation and completion of such projects. Mere fact that these projects were completed by the students, prima facie, was not sufficient fact in the light of the findings recorded in the first round of litigation between the parties to deprive the respondent from the benefit of these projects. The Selection Board had left only the verification of the projects claimed by the respondent. The Vice- Chancellor, therefore, as rightly observed in the first round of litigation, had no jurisdictional competence to examine and determine the utilization and usefulness of these projects as that was the job of the Selection Board and the Selection Board has clearly laid down about such projects that these were significant contribution in the field of electronics. The reports submitted by the Dean of the Engineering University and the Vice-Chancellor of the Azan Jammu and Kashmir University, unanimously supports this view that the projects are in existence. However, they refused to extend the benefit of these projects to the contesting respondent because in their wisdom these projects were completed by the students during the studies of their B.Sc. Course.
As stated earlier it was not the case of the appellants that the students had not owned the supervision and advice of the respondent in the completion of their projects, therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the learned Judge in the High Court has rightly drafted the judgment under challenge. This appeal, in view of the above narrated facts, having no substance is dismissed with costs.