' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.--- Brief facts of the case as mentioned in writ petition are that petitioners are employees of the G.C. University, Faisalabad holding statutory posts as per the G.C.
University, Faisalabad Ordinance, 2002. Whereas the G.C. University, Faisalabad which is a corporate body created under a statute was never impleaded as a party to the litigation in the Courts below. Respondent No,3 who is admittedly a civil servant and had been working in the Auditor General Office, was sent on deputation to the G.C. University, Faisalabad. The University administration apprehended the said, respondent No,3 as involved in various acts of corruption.
Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted in which he was found guilty and he was recommended for repatriation. It was further contended that as per section 17 of G.C. University, Faisalabad Ordinance, 2002, the resident auditor was required to be taken from the office of Auditor General of Pakistan on the terms and conditions determined by the Syndicate. When the respondent No,3 was found guilty in acts of corruption, the University Syndicate approved the repatriation of respondent No,3 to his parent department in the interest of the University and public at large. However, instead of leaving the department, respondent No,3 filed a civil suit in the Civil Court challenging the order of his repatriation along with consequently relief that he should not be restrained from working as resident auditor of the University. The trial Court entertained the suit and also passed an order to maintain status-quo. The petitioner contested the suit and filed their written statement and written reply. However, learned trial Court issued stay order. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision petition against the order dated 21-10-2009 but it met the same fate.
2. That it is noteworthy that the petitioner after dismissal of revision petition also filed appeal against the same impugned order dated 21-10-2009 which was dismissed being incompetent, hence this writ petition.
3. Learned, counsel contends that term case decided has utterly been misconstrued by respondent No,1 who failed to appreciate that even interlocutory orders of the nature as has been passed in the instant case would constitute a decided case and this liable to be reviewable under section 151, C.P.C. Learned counsel further contends that admittedly, University cannot be bound by respondent No,3 when it was neither been suit nor towards the same, therefore, writ petition be allowed and both the impugned orders dated 17-11-2009 and 21-10-2009 passed by the respondents. Nos.1 and 2 respectively be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contends that G.C. University, Faisalabad was not made a party unfortunately. However, on 20-1-2010 an application for removing technical errors in the original plaint was moved with the prayer for removing technical error and according to para No,17 of the constitution of G.C. University, Faisalabad, memorandum that service of resident auditor of the University were to be obtained from Auditor-General of Pakistan.
Accordingly, at the request of University, Auditor General of Pakistan deputed respondent No,3 from his establishment for the post of resident auditor. Learned counsel further contends that respondent No,3 has more than thirty two years spotless service and during his stay on deputation at G.C. University, Faisalabad, he has been performing job as per regulations of University.
Therefore, University is not authorizing to stop the salary/benefits of respondent No,3 or to ask him for repatriation.
5. Arguments herd, record perused.
6. Admittedly, respondent No,3 is employee of Auditor General of Pakistan and respondent No,3 was posted at University with the approval and order of Auditor-General of Pakistan. There is no cavil that terms and conditions of deputationist are approved, before a person sent on deputation by the department and it is for the parent department who may recall the service of deputationist.
Further a officer of deputation do not fall in the definition of civil servants till he has been repatriated to his parent department. The matter is still pending for adjudication before the competent Court of law who will decide the matter after framing of issues and recording of evidence. Order which have been impugned in the writ petition do not suffer from any illegality.
Therefore, no interference is called for. .